United States v. Wilkins
943 F. Supp. 2d 248
D. Mass.2013Background
- Merritt and Wilkins were arrested following an undercover drug buy on April 23, 2011, with Merritt handling a buy and passing a cell phone and bags of crack cocaine to the officer.
- Wilkins was arrested at the MBTA stop; thirty bags of a white substance were found in the van, plus a bag on his person and a bag retained in a shoe.
- Annie Dookhan, a chemist at the DPH lab, engaged in misconduct including protocol breaches and dry-labbing, which later came to light during the prosecutions.
- Initial testing at the Jamaica Plain laboratory certified the seized drugs as crack cocaine and provided weights for some bags; several bags from Wilkins were certified as tested, with extrapolated weights.
- After Merritt and Wilkins moved to vacate, the government commissioned retesting using independent analysis, which showed drugs were cocaine base despite earlier certifications.
- Guilty pleas were entered in 2012, Merritt in June and Wilkins in January, with the court finding a strong factual basis and accepting waivers of rights; sentences followed with Merritt at 84 months and Wilkins at 102 months, while Merritt reserved the right to seek relief amid the Dookhan scandal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty pleas were involuntary due to due process concerns | Merritt/Wilkins argue Brady/Ferrara undermined voluntariness | Defendants contend government misconduct tainted decisions | Denied; pleas voluntary under Brady/Brady-US and Ferrara analysis |
| Whether failure to disclose impeachment information before pleading violated due process | Merritt/Wilkins claim nondisclosure affected integrity of plea | Government did not disclose impeachment info; impact on plea inadequate | Denied; Ruiz limits pre-plea disclosure to not render pleas involuntary |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel due to lack of impeachment information invalidates pleas | Counsel could not provide informed advice without impeachment info | Ruiz bars ineffective-assistance claim based on pre-plea impeachment unknowns | Denied; no Strickland prejudice shown under context of plea bargaining |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marrero-Rivera, 124 F.3d 342 (1st Cir.1997) (factors for pre-sentencing guilty plea withdrawal; voluntariness focus)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir.2006) (two-pronged test for involuntary plea; egregious conduct and prejudice)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (impeachment information not required pre-plea; pleas can be knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 351 F.3d 594 (1st Cir.2003) (separate Brady rule considerations in plea context)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir.2006) (two-pronged test for involuntary plea; egregious conduct and prejudice)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (impeachment information in plea negotiations context)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for plea withdrawals; Strickland standard applied to counsel performance)
- United States v. Carrington, 96 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996) (pre-sentencing withdrawal standard; fair procedure)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (guilty plea generally forecloses non-innocence claims not affecting guilt)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard for impeachment evidence)