United States v. Walker
657 F.3d 160
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Barron and Barry Walker were convicted in August 2008 of federal drug trafficking, firearms, and Hobbs Act robbery charges and were sentenced to 47½ years; Barry also faced escape and additional drug counts.
- Indictment and superseding charges expanded to include Hobbs Act Counts VI–VIII and Barry’s Counts VII–VIII, with Barry’s escape and new drug charge added after initial four-count indictment.
- Barron moved to sever under Rule 8(b) and Rule 14 due to Barry’s separate escape and drug charges; district court denied, finding joinder proper and no substantial prejudice.
- Prosecution disclosed an intended Hobbs Act expert, Chief Goshert, five days before trial; defense objected to late disclosure which district court overruled for lack of Rule 16 notice.
- Trial evidence for Counts I–III (drug distribution/conspiracy/possession of firearm in furtherance) and Counts V–VI (Hobbs Act robbery and firearm) included testimony from Jason McNeil and Skylar Rhoades; Rhoades testified Barry had a gun during a sale.
- A post-trial Brady issue arose from undisclosed March 8, 2007, cocaine possession by Rhoades; defense argued it could impeach credibility; district court denied a new trial, which the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8(b) joinder proper? | Walker argues improper joinder due to Barry’s later acts. | Walker contends charges against Barry are unrelated timewise. | Joinder proper under Rule 8(b). |
| Rule 14 severance warranted? | Barron seeks severance due to prejudice from Barry's charges. | Barron claims joint trial would prejudice him. | District court did not abuse discretion; no clear substantial prejudice.” |
| Sufficiency of §924(c) evidence? | Walkers challenge whether evidence showed their firearm use advanced drug trafficking. | Walkers argue insufficient nexus between gun and drug sales. | Evidence sufficient; rational juror could find gun possession in furtherance of drug trafficking. |
| Admission of Hobbs Act expert testimony? | Goshert’s reliability and late notice violated Rule 16 and reliability standards. | Goshert’s experience justifies admission; reliance on expertise appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; testimony reliable and admissible. |
| Hobbs Act interstate commerce element? | Prosecution showed de minimis or broader impact via out-of-state cocaine origin. | Challenge to connection between Wright’s theft and interstate commerce. | Sufficient nexus; de minimis impact or aggregate effect supports jurisdiction. |
| Brady material withholding? | Non-disclosure of March 8, 2007 item impeachment potential. | Undisclosed evidence did not create reasonable probability of different result. | No Brady violation; materiality not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir.2008) (joinder of co-defendants; de novo review for Rule 8(b) issues)
- United States v. Irizarry, 341 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.2003) (Rule 8(b) joinder and transactional nexus)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (reversals for prejudice in joint trials; compartmentalization considerations)
- United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir.2005) (four-factor Lopez-era framework for substantial effects on interstate commerce)
- Clausen, 328 F.3d 708 (3d Cir.2003) (de minimis effect standard for Hobbs Act intrastate activities with interstate nexus)
- Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (Congress may regulate intrastate activities with substantial effect on interstate commerce)