United States v. Waller
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16876
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Waller was convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania of felon in possession of a firearm, heroin possession with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime.
- Police stopped a Cadillac in a high-crime Pittsburgh area for alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations; Waller was a passenger and reached toward his waistband.
- An officer found a loaded .38 revolver on Waller and seized 1.63 grams of heroin (52 stamp bags) from his jacket; no paraphernalia or other drug-dealing indicia were found.
- The defense argued Waller possessed the heroin for personal use; the government contended he was a dealer with intent to distribute.
- To prove intent, the government relied on Trooper Warfield’s testimony about heroin packaging, typical user behavior, and the value of stamp bags; Waller admitted possession of heroin and firearm but contested intent.
- The district court instructed the jury that it could infer intent from surrounding circumstances, including statements made or omitted by the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the instruction allowed consideration of the defendant's post-arrest silence | Waller | Waller | Instruction impermissibly permitted post-Miranda silence to show intent |
| Whether comparing district court instruction to pattern instructions cures the error | Waller | Government | Comparison insufficient to justify the challenged language |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Waller | Government | Not harmless; warranted new trial |
| Whether the judgment should be vacated and remanded for a new trial | Waller | Government | Conviction vacated and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibition on comment on silence at trial)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (pre-arrest silence cannot be used against a defendant after Miranda warnings)
- Martinez v. United States, 620 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2010) (harms analysis for Fifth Amendment error; Chapman framework)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional errors)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (harmless error requires reversal unless error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Garrett, 574 F.2d 778 (3d Cir. 1978) (whether a presumption in an instruction shifts the burden of proof)
- Mendez-Zamora v. United States, 296 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2002) (inferences from omissions as evidence of intent)