United States v. Washington
653 F.3d 1251
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Washington was convicted of witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A) after a murder-for-hire plot against Lt. Stark.
- The plot originated with Ronald Irving; Collins informed authorities and agreed to cooperate, leading to FBI surveillance and recordings.
- Washington traveled with Collins toward Muskogee to carry out the plan; he was arrested on the Arkansas River Bridge with gloves but no weapon.
- Indictment charged Washington with attempting to kill Stark by conspiring to shoot him to prevent testimony in federal proceedings.
- Washington separately challenged the indictment as duplicitous; the district court denied the motion to dismiss.
- At trial, the defense relied on lack of a substantial step and argued only preparatory actions; the jury convicted Washington.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment charged a crime | Washington argues the interplay of attempt and conspiracy voids charge | Washington contends indictment fails to state a valid offense | Indictment sufficient to charge witness tampering |
| Whether indictment was duplicitous | Washington claims single count charged two offenses | Washington argues conspiracy and attempt are separate offenses in one count | Indictment not duplicitous; charged a single offense |
| Sufficiency of evidence for witness-tampering conviction | Washington contends no substantial step toward murder | Washington asserts actions are mere preparation | Sufficient evidence of substantial step and intent |
| Exclusion of Terry Warrior's testimony under Rule of Sequestration | Sequestration violation warranted admission of testimony | District court abused discretion by excluding testimony | Exclusion was harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (indictment defects are not always jurisdictional; plain-error review applies)
- United States v. Sinks, 473 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2007) (post-C Cotton indictment challenges reviewed for plain error)
- United States v. Gama-Bastidas, 222 F.3d 779 (10th Cir. 2000) (indictment validity reviewed with liberal construction; elements and notice)
- United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (indictment sufficiency: elements, notice, double jeopardy considerations)