United States v. Tremain Braxton
20-1491
| 6th Cir. | Mar 29, 2022Background
- In Aug. 2018 law enforcement executed searches and arrested multiple participants in a large crystal methamphetamine distribution conspiracy based in southwest Michigan; 24 people were indicted.
- Tremain Braxton, Timothy Mason, Daryl Cannon, and Darrell Summers II went to a 10-day jury trial; Raymond Stovall, a cooperating co‑conspirator who pled guilty, was the government’s key witness.
- The government introduced intercepted communications (wiretaps), shipping and flight records, phone records, and co‑conspirator testimony to corroborate Stovall.
- The jury convicted all four of conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams of meth; Braxton and Mason received 180 months; Cannon and Summers received 240 months.
- On appeal defendants raised suppression, evidentiary, confrontation, prosecutorial‑misconduct, sufficiency, and multiple sentencing challenges; the Sixth Circuit affirmed convictions but vacated Cannon’s sentence for resentencing on an obstruction enhancement issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap authorization (probable cause & necessity) | Gov’t: affidavit established probable cause and necessity for intercepts | Braxton & Mason: application relied on unreliable sources and failed necessity showing | Court: Wiretap met probable cause and necessity standards; affidavit corroborated and explained investigative steps; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Admission of wiretap recordings & transcripts | Gov’t: recordings and transcripts were sufficiently audible and reliable | Braxton: recordings incomprehensible; transcripts unreliable | Court: district court reviewed tapes vs transcripts, found transcribed portions clear and intelligible; admission not abuse of discretion |
| Motion to adjourn after late Jencks disclosure | Gov’t: produced Jencks material earlier than required; trial should proceed | Defs (Braxton/Mason/Summers): insufficient time to review 13+ GB of Jencks material | Court: district court did not abuse scheduling discretion; defendants failed to show actual prejudice from denial |
| Mistrial after juror statements | Gov’t: juror excused for cause; no contagion | Cannon: voir dire comments by a corrections officer poisoned panel and warranted mistrial | Court: district court’s credibility assessment entitled to deference; no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial |
| Cross‑examination of cooperating witness re: child pornography | Defs: need to probe bias/motive to lie based on alleged child‑porn findings on Stovall’s phone | Gov’t: no evidence of an agreement re those offenses; disclosure would be highly prejudicial | Held: district court reasonably limited cross‑examination; jury already aware of strong incentives for Stovall to cooperate; limitation within trial court’s discretion (majority); partial dissent argued Confrontation Clause required the inquiry |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting false testimony (July 11 sale) | Mason: Stovall’s testimony contradicted prior trial testimony and another witness; prosecutor elicited false testimony | Gov’t: inconsistencies but ample corroboration; not indisputably false | Court: reviewed for plain error; inconsistencies were not indisputably false; claim fails |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Cannon & Summers) | Cannon/Summers: evidence showed only association or independent sales, not conspiracy participation | Gov’t: testimony, travel records, phone communications, and co‑conspirator accounts tied them to conspiracy and distribution | Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to gov’t, testimony and records sufficient to sustain convictions |
| Sentencing — §924(e) / "serious drug offense" classification (Braxton) | Braxton: Michigan statute shouldn’t qualify as serious drug offense under §924(e) | Gov’t: Sixth Circuit precedent controls | Court: rejected Braxton’s argument as foreclosed by circuit precedent |
| Sentencing — drug quantity and obstruction enhancement (Cannon) | Cannon: challenged 30‑lb attribution and §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement | Gov’t: Stovall’s testimony supports drug quantity and perjury finding | Court: drug‑quantity finding supported; but district court failed to make required specific findings to apply §3C1.1 per Roberts — vacated Cannon’s sentence and remanded to decide obstruction enhancement properly |
| Sentencing — leader/organizer role (Summers) | Summers: not an organizer/leader | Gov’t: evidence showed Summers supervised a subordinate (Campbell) | Court: findings supported by trial testimony; no clear error in §3B1.1(c) enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (standards for reviewing wiretap authorizations)
- Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2014) (probable‑cause standard for warrants is not high bar)
- United States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158 (6th Cir. 1988) (necessity requirement for wiretaps does not require exhaustion of every conceivable method)
- United States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2017) (wiretap necessity analysis)
- United States v. Wesley, 417 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2005) (admissibility of audio recordings)
- United States v. Wilkinson, 53 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 1995) (unintelligible audio may render recording inadmissible if it undermines trustworthiness)
- United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1983) (use of transcripts and court’s independent accuracy check)
- United States v. Van Dyke, 605 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1979) (trial scheduling discretion)
- United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839 (6th Cir. 1992) (mistrial review standard)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Confrontation Clause right to probe witness bias)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment based on promises or agreements with government)
- United States v. Rosencrantz, 568 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for proving elicited false testimony)
- United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817 (6th Cir. 1989) ("indisputably false" standard)
- United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2000) (drug‑quantity attribution based on coconspirator testimony)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (drug‑quantity factual findings review)
- United States v. Roberts, 919 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2019) (requirements for §3C1.1 perjury enhancement findings)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993) (perjury consequences for testifying defendants)
- United States v. Sexton, 894 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2018) (leader/organizer enhancement review)
- United States v. Wilson, 614 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2010) (procedural posture on sentencing remand issues)