United States v. Walter Hill
684 F. App'x 140
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Walter Hill was tried (with Raymond Brown tried simultaneously before a separate jury) for drug offenses tied to Roberto Tapia’s narcotics conspiracy; Tapia cooperated and testified for the Government.
- Evidence included Tapia’s testimony, Angelo Hill’s testimony about phone calls and payments, and a surreptitious recorded conversation by Angelo leading to Hill’s indictment.
- Hill was charged on multiple counts including (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, (2) possession with intent to distribute, and (3) use of a communication facility (Count 42) alleged to be a phone call on May 5, 2013.
- A jury convicted Hill on all counts; the District Court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment.
- Hill appealed raising five issues: improper dual trial, limits on cross-examination of Tapia (Confrontation Clause), insufficiency of evidence for Count 42, failure to recuse Chief Judge Gomez, and Alleyne-based sentencing challenge for prior-conviction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder / dual trial | Joint trial with Brown before separate juries was improper and plain error | Preclusion by prior panel decision; no reversible error | Affirmed; claim precluded by United States v. Raymond Brown |
| Confrontation Clause / cross-exam limits | Court barred/suppressed inquiry into Tapia’s plea agreement and corrupt task force, denying ability to show bias | District Court allowed impeachment on cooperation; limited only marginally relevant or prejudicial lines | No abuse of discretion; limits on repetitive/marginal cross-examination permitted |
| Sufficiency re Count 42 (communication facility) | Government failed to prove any phone call by Hill on May 5, 2013 as charged | Trial evidence showed phone communications on May 17 and other conduct (payment, coordination) sufficient to show use of phone to facilitate drug offense; assertion forfeited for not raising specific sufficiency argument below | Majority: argument waived; even on merits evidence was sufficient for the offense; conviction affirmed. Dissent: would vacate Count 42 for constructive amendment/variance |
| Recusal of Chief Judge Gomez | Judge should have recused sua sponte because he authorized the recording and allegedly knew witness Angelo Hill | No authority showing recusal required; record lacks factual support for alleged familiarity | Plain-error review fails; no recusal required or shown |
| Alleyne / sentencing enhancement | Under Alleyne, facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury; jury did not find prior conviction so sentencing procedure invalid | Hill admitted prior conviction in filings; Almendarez‑Torres permits prior convictions to be treated as sentencing facts, not jury-found elements | Alleyne claim fails; prior conviction exception applies and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Werme, 939 F.2d 108 (3d Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for cross-examination limits)
- United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193 (3d Cir.) (right to explore plea agreements and leniency during cross-examination)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard: any rational trier of fact)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (limitations on cross-examination for confrontation rights)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (mandatory-minimum facts must be found by jury)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior-conviction exception permitting sentencing treatment of prior convictions)