United States v. Yonas Eshetu
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13345
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Lovo, Sorto, and Eshetu met with undercover agents posing as drug operatives and planned a Hobbs Act robbery; they were arrested at a storage unit before the robbery occurred.
- Police seized a Kia the defendants used; an initial warrantless search recovered clothing and a bag; a later search pursuant to a warrant uncovered firearms and other weapons.
- A federal grand jury indicted the three for conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act) and Lovo and Sorto for using/possessing firearms in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- At trial the government played video/audio recordings (often in Spanish) with witness testimony summarizing their content; defendants did not object to admission at trial.
- The jury convicted Lovo and Sorto on both counts and Eshetu on the conspiracy count; post-trial motions (raised months later) were largely denied as untimely.
- On appeal the court affirmed most rulings but remanded ineffective-assistance claims for the district court to develop facts (including failure to seek an entrapment instruction and failure to object to untranslated recordings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless search of the Kia | Gov: automobile exception permitted a warrantless search because the vehicle was readily mobile and there was probable cause | Defs: Best’s initial search of the car without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Affirmed: automobile exception applies; Kia was readily mobile and probable cause existed to search based on meetings, weapons talk, and defendants’ statements |
| § 924(c)(3)(B) vagueness challenge | Gov: § 924(c)(3)(B) is constitutional and distinguishable from the ACCA residual clause | Defs: clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson because it requires indeterminate risk assessments under the categorical approach | Rejected: § 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague—distinguished from ACCA by textual differences, focus on risk that force may be used "in the course of" the offense, absence of an enumerated comparator list, and manageable categorical analysis for federal offenses |
| Admission of untranslated Spanish recordings | Gov: recordings were admissible and witnesses testified as to content | Defs: playing foreign-language audio without English transcripts or verbatim translations improperly allowed witnesses to summarize noncomprehensible evidence | Error acknowledged but not plain: district court erred in admitting untranslated audio, but error did not meet plain-error reversal standard given available Spanish-speaking witnesses, some English portions, and video evidence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to request entrapment instruction; failure to object to tapes) | Defs: counsel’s omissions were objectively unreasonable and prejudiced the defense | Gov: counsel’s tactical decisions and any omissions did not establish prejudice on the record | Remanded: claims are colorable and fact-intensive; remand to district court is required to develop record and assess deficient performance and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (probable cause justifies warrantless search of a readily mobile vehicle)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for defining predicate offenses)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (interpretation of similar "in the course of committing the offense" language and focus on use of force)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (discussion of residual-clause vagueness and categorical approach)
- United States v. Sheffield, 832 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. — probable cause and vehicle searches)
- United States v. Williams, 773 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. — vehicle mobility for automobile exception)
- United States v. Gooch, 665 F.3d 1318 (plain-error standard review in criminal appeals)
- United States v. White, 116 F.3d 903 (trial court discretion in admitting recordings)