United States v. Turner
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7899
3rd Cir.2012Background
- ATF agent Edwards investigated Kazoo's Barber Shop, leading to gun purchases and a seizure of a Kel-Tec rifle; Lawson, a felon, claimed to have bought the rifle from Jabriel in Philadelphia; Coates was the original Lou's Loans buyer who bought for Jabriel, later identified Turner as Jabriel in photos.
- Turner was indicted on three counts: conspiracy to make false statements to a firearms dealer (with Coates as straw purchaser), aiding and abetting false statements, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
- Lawson and Coates pleaded guilty and testified at trial; Turner’s counsel attacked their credibility and prosecutors’ witnesses during cross-examination and redirect, including Lawson’s knowledge of Turner as “Jabriel.”
- The jury convicted Turner on all counts; the district court imposed a 190-month sentence under a downward variance from a 210–262 month guideline range, after a 180-month mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- This appeal involved an unusual procedural history with a “quasi-Anders” brief by counsel, Turner’s pro se filings, and questions about hybrid representation and Local Appellate Rule 31.3; the court ultimately affirmed the conviction and clarified representation rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limiting instruction on Lawson’s cooperation | Turner argues the court erred by not giving a limiting instruction on Lawson’s cooperation. | Government contends no clear or obvious error; no duty to issue a limiting instruction given the evidence. | No plain error; no clear or obvious error in failing to give a limiting instruction. |
| Admission of ‘Jimmy X Turner’ and Lawson’s dossier | Turner contends these references were prejudicial and could mislead jurors about religious associations and criminal records. | Court properly admitted the evidence under 403; prejudice outweighed by probative value is minimal. | No error, let alone plain error; admission not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Counsel’s quasi-Anders brief and ethical duty | Turner’s counsel filed a quasi-Anders brief; Turner seeks hybrid representation. | Counsel’s approach violated McCoy and Rule 31.3; frivolous issues should not be pressed. | Counsel’s quasi-Anders brief improper; explicit rule: represented parties may not file pro se briefs except Anders; hybrid representation not allowed. |
| Effect of Rule 31.3 interpretation on pro se filings | Rule 31.3 ambiguous about who may file supplemental briefs in unusual cases. | Rule 31.3 natural reading precludes pro se briefs by represented parties; briefs should be filed by counsel. | Rule 31.3 interpreted to bar pro se briefs from represented parties; pro se filings referred to counsel for placement in briefs. |
| Overall consequence and affirmance of conviction | Errors alleged not sufficient to overturn conviction; non-frivolous issues fail to undermine trial. | Non-frivolous arguments insufficient to alter outcome; issues resolved in favor of Government. | Conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (attorney may refuse to press frivolous arguments; ethical duty of counsel)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue)
- Showers v. Beard, 635 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2011) (appellate counsel may select core issues to maximize success)
- United States v. Tyson, 653 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2011) (plain error standard for review of unpreserved errors)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error framework for correction)
- Jones v. United States (McCoy references), No-citation (McCoy quotation) (1988) (ethical duty of counsel under McCoy)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (indigent defendant no right to counsel of choice; counsel’s role)