Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 13-4069
No. 15-4153
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00508-ELH-1)
Argued:
WYNN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
- 2 -
grams
or
more
of
heroin
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
denial of his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
evidence.
Because
we
agree
with
Blue
that
the
evidence
is
I
A.
firearm
(Fenner)
charges
agreed
(Detective
Bearde)
Gialamas) of
ongoing
to
the
heroin
in
Baltimore,
cooperate
and
with
Sergeant
Baltimore City
trafficking
Maryland,
Herbert
Fenner
Detective
William
Bearde
Marinos
Police
Gialamas
Department in their
investigation
- 3 -
(Sergeant
in
the
Baltimore
area.
whom
earlier
he
the
had
same
respectively).
Detective Bearde
purchased
month
Armed
heroin
on
(purchasing
with
this
two
ten
new
separate
and
twenty
information,
controlled
in
vehicle
of
North
Curley
parked
Gialamas
Street
on
the
and
without
800
Fenner
block
viewed
obstruction.
of
North
the 700
Sergeant
Gialamas sat in the front drivers seat, while Fenner sat in the
middle of the back seat leaning forward.
in the passenger front seat of the same vehicle, but his view of
the 700 block of North Curley Street was obstructed by another
vehicle
parked
directly
in
front
of
the
undercover
vehicle.
and
placed
responded
an
that
order
he
would
for
be
fifty
grams
of
heroin.
ready
in
about
fifteen
minutes.
Several minutes later, Townsend walked out of his house and
interacted
for
less
than
minute
with
the
occupants
of a
700
his
front
right
pants
pocket,
opened
were
partially
drivers side.
inside
the
it,
removed
some
paper
window
of
the
Lexus
on
the
Curley Street, Sergeant Gialamas and Fenner did not see anything
pass back to Townsend from any occupant of the Lexus.
Next, Townsend walked toward the corner of East Madison
Street
and
North
Curley
Street
where
he
met
with
Blue
for
(J.A. 407).
Blue and
raised their left hands toward each other and lowered them back
down.
Street,
then
walked
while
toward
Blue
his
headed
in
residence
the
at
opposite
715
North
direction,
While walking,
Townsend
he
telephoned
Fenner
and
told
his
residence,
an
arrest
team
him
that
was
ready.
him,
placed
him
One of
The
(Detective
Department
McShane)
witnessed
Blue
of
the
enter
the
Detective James
Baltimore
Baltimore
City
City
Police
District
on
Blues
vehicle
parked
nearby.
When
Blue
later exited the courthouse and entered his vehicle along with a
male passenger, Detective McShane, driving an unmarked vehicle,
began
to
follow
Blue.
So
did
Detective
Bearde
and
another
approximately
northbound
at
twenty
a
minutes
normal
Blue
rate
of
and
his
speed
passenger
past
Lake
Montebello until he pulled into the parking lot of the Fox Hall
apartment complex on Rosecrans Place in Nottingham, Maryland,
which is still in Baltimore County.
to
the
entered
the
configuration
surveilling
any
apartment
of
officers
in
apartment
could
apartment
not
building
see
building
number
whether
number
Blue
seven.
Rather, the surveilling officers saw Blue enter the front door
of apartment building number seven, go up a couple of steps, and
then disappear.
Detective McShane, Detective Bearde, and the third officer
took turns following Blues vehicle back to Lake Montebello in
Baltimore City and kept him under surveillance.
Lake Montebello
Blue
parked and exited his vehicle with only his mobile phone in his
hand.
As
identified
toward
as
Jeep
Jamar
Holt (Holt).
Cherokee
vehicle.
got
into
the
passenger side, Holt got into the drivers side, and Holt drove
them around Lake
Montebello.
minute
or
entrance to Lake
two
later,
Holt
Montebello,
Blue
Detective
and
McShane
ordered
him
approached
to
show
his
Holts
vehicle
hands.
The
from
the
encounter
Detective McShane
the
officers
gave
chase
by
vehicle,
Holt
same
day,
the
GPS
tracking
device
on
Blues
nonetheless.
Blue
Sinclair
During
falsely
Lane
denied
earlier
his
interview
exiting
that
day
and
the
with
Detective
residence
falsely
at
denied
4913
leaving
under surveillance earlier that day and had been seen entering
building
number
seven
of
the
Fox
Hall
apartment
complex
on
that day, Blue admitted that he had met with Holt to discuss a
drug transaction that was to take place later that afternoon.
At this point, the interview ended.
During a search of Blues person incident to his arrest,
Detective Bearde recovered a set of keys.
Investigative work
revealed that one key of the set of keys unlocked the door of
apartment 1-D in building number seven of the Fox Hall apartment
complex
on
Rosecrans
Place
(the
Apartment).
After
officers
evidence
of
narcotics
trafficking.
Execution
of
the
in
footstool
in
the
front
bedroom.
In
the
same
enforcement
residence
at
4913
also
obtained
Sinclair
Lane.
search
Execution
warrant
of
for
such
the
warrant
Procedural History.
distribute
containing
100
Blue
or
detectable
841(a)(1), 846.
2011,
grams
more
amount
of
of
mixture
or
heroin.
substance
21
U.S.C.
possessed
with
intent
to
distribute
mixture
or
Id.
- 10 -
government
exclusionary
warrantless
vehicle
argued
rule
applied
placement
was
the
because
of
lawful.
good
the
The
faith
exception
to
the
officers
believed
that
the
GPS
tracking
district
device
court
agreed
on
Blues
with
the
prosecution
the
testimony
of
of
Blue
six
at
In support of the
trial,
witnesses
the
and
government
introduced
the
and
Townsend.
The
government
also
relied
upon
the
2011 weighs 49.87 grams; (2) the heroin found in the footstool
in the front bedroom of the Apartment weighs 108.6 grams; and
(3)
no
fingerprints
were
found
on
the
clear
plastic
bag
all
counts
at
all
appropriate
times.
Believing
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
challenges,
the
district
Of relevance on
(J.A. 788).
with
either
100
grams
or
more
or
Less
than
100
Id.
(J.A. 789).
Id.
acquittal,
although
the
district
court
continued
to
believe
In
this
regard,
the
district
court
was
readily
heroin,
but
believed
whether
the
evidence
was
of
appeal
challenging
the
denial
of
his
motion
to
for
new
trial
discovered evidence.
motion,
interest
court
of
may
justice
on
Counts
and
based
upon
newly
judgment
requires).
and
grant
new
On
October
31,
trial
if
2014,
we
We consolidated
II
For
analytical
purposes,
we
first
address
Blues
same.
In
this
count,
the
100
grams
or
more
of
heroin
trial
could
support
any
rational
determination
of
guilty
849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Section 841(a) provides, in relevant part, that it shall
be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally(1) to
. . . possess with intent to . . . distribute . . . a controlled
substance
841(b)(1)(B)(i)
permits
21
an
U.S.C.
enhanced
841(a)(1).
sentence
for
Section
an
offense
Id.
841(b)(1)(B)(i).
was
Apartment,
in
the
footstool
and
(2)
whether
in
Blue
the
had
front
the
bedroom
power
of
to
the
exercise
Bell, 954 F.2d 232, 235 (4th Cir. 1992) (constructive possession
requires knowledge of contrabands presence and the exercise, or
the power to exercise, dominion and control over it), overruled
on other grounds by Burgos, 94 F.3d at 849; United States v.
Schocket,
753
constructive
F.2d
336,
possession
340
of
(4th
a
Cir.
narcotic
1985)
if
(A
he
person
knows
of
has
its
presence and has the power to exercise dominion and control over
it.).
mere
proximity
to
the
contraband,
by
mere
presence
on
the
United States
tenancy
of
residence
is
Moreover, [m]ere
insufficient
to
prescribe
the
premises
constructive
by
itself
possession.).
is
insufficient
Rather,
[i]n
to
establish
joint
occupancy
Id.
alone,
is
insufficient
evidence
to
establish
his
therefrom
beyond
in
a
favor
of
reasonable
the
doubt
government,
that
Blue
the
government
constructively
In
this
regard,
the
government
points
to
the
of
any
personal
effects
of
Blue
in
the
points
Administration
to
Special
the
testimony
Agent
Todd
of
Apartment
In support, the
Drug
Edwards
is
Enforcement
(Special
Agent
the
manner
traffickers
and
means
sometimes
of
utilize
drug
the
trafficking,
homes
of
that
family
drug
members,
access
to
their
drugs,
[b]ut
if
law
enforcement
is
(J.A.
Hall
apartment
minutes.
complex
more
than
the
one
time
for
five
the
government
did
not
attempt
to
prove
As
constructive
Apartment,
or
that
any
of
his
personal
possessions
were
stash house that the government wants us to draw from the fact
that
no
Apartment
personal
is
an
items
belonging
unreasonable
one
to
Blue
given
were
the
found
complete
in
lack
the
of
Edwards upon which the government relies to support its stashhouse inference hinges on one of the occupants of the Apartment
being a family member, girlfriend, or a close friend of Blue.
But the government introduced no such evidence that Blue even
knew, let alone had any such close relationship with any of the
occupants of the Apartment.
from which the jury could reasonably infer that the Apartment
was
stash
house
based
on
Special
Agent
Edwards
testimony
number
seven
of
the
Fox
Hall
apartment
complex
was
most,
seven
Blue
of
the
was
Fox
observed
Hall
entering
apartment
apartment
complex
on
building
Rosecrans
immediately
driving
to
meet
someone
with
whom
he
falsely
denied
to
law
enforcement
officers
that
he
had
Besides the
key,
the
government
presented
no
other
evidence,
precedent
holding
such
little
direct
or
There is no
nexus
between
Cf. United
States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 699 (8th Cir. 2002) (dominion and
control
over
contraband
hidden
in
anothers
house
cannot
be
(concluding
insufficient
evidence
of
constructive
record
lacked
evidence
that
defendant
resided
or
showing
heroin
Blue
found
in
constructively
possessed
the
in
footstool
the
the
front
108.6
grams
bedroom
of
of
the
complex
earlier
in
the
day
to
get
it
across
the
sure,
the
jury
was
free
to
consider
whether
To
Blues
building
number
seven
of
the
Fox
Hall
apartment
complex.
Cf. United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 665 (4th Cir.
that
jurys
finding
consciousness of guilt.).
of
guilt
may
be
supported
by
Blues case was weakened by the fact that Blue also lied about
being at the Sinclair residence earlier the same day where no
contraband
was
found.
Additionally,
to
infer
Blues
complex
earlier
that
day
is
too
tenuous
to
be
on
Blues
States
v.
part
Whitner,
considerable
219
F.3d
importance,
289
(3d
Cir.
relying
on
2000),
to
at
supply
issue
here.
probable
Here,
cause
Blues
to
get
deceptive
the
That analysis is
responses
warrant
to
helped
search
the
213,
235
(1983)
Florida v. Harris,
(Finely-tuned
standards
such
as
proof
prima
facie
showing,
responses
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
knowledge
of
the
of
criminal
activity.
(internal
get
the
finish
presence
of
line
the
government
that
108.6
Blue
past
not
grams
the
only
of
had
heroin
The
case has adopted this overly broad statement as the law of the
Fourth Circuit.
Circuit
case
narcotics
reside.
are
See
residence
is
analyzing
discovered
in
F.3d
place
possession
where
multiple
where
persons
to
constructive
1160,
1168
prescribe
possession
of
its
(8th
Cir.
2014),
the
Eighth
Circuit
is
insufficient
to
establish
constructive
possession.
lest
there
be
any
doubt
about
the
Wright
panels
Id. at
whether
the
government
had
proved
the
Id.
defendants
Chief Judge
but
contextual
reading
of
these
cases
cursory
has
never
allowed
the
government
to
convict
an
individual for drugs he knew nothing about based solely upon his
possession of a duplicated key.
III
We now turn to address Blues challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his conviction on Count 1, charging
him under
21
U.S.C.
846
with
conspiracy
to
distribute
and
shall
prescribed
for
be
the
subject
offense,
to
the
the
commission
same
penalties
of
as
which
those
was
the
21 U.S.C. 846.
conspiracy
conviction,
our
function
is
to
determine,
evidence
adduced
at
trial
could
support
any
rational
Burgos, 94
the
present
case,
viewing
the
evidence
and
the
determination
that
Blue
is
guilty
of
conspiring
to
we
explained
at
length
in
Part
- 25 -
II
of
this
opinion,
the
reasonable
doubt
that
Blue
even
knew
about
such
heroin.
In
Count 1.
One
final
issuein
single
footnote
in
its
appellate
626
F.3d
756
(4th
Cir.
2010),
in
support
of
its
position that, in the event we find the evidence before the jury
insufficient
to
sustain
Blues
conviction
for
conspiracy
to
of
heroin,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
841(a)(1),
on
the
lesser
included
offense
of
conspiracy
to
of
(b)(1)(C).
heroin,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
841(a)(1),
- 26 -
courts
of
reformation
to
conviction
for
appeals
those
a
should
limit
circumstances
lesser
offense
the
when
whose
what
use
is
of
sought
commission
that
we
judgment
is
can
a
be
Thornton,
cannot
know
the
jury
actually
found
Blue
grams
of
heroin
found
in
the
footstool
in
the
front
- 27 -
which
case
we
vacated
the
defendants
conviction
for
in
conspiracy
to
distribute
and
possess
with
Here, in
found
Blue
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
of
every
Accordingly, judgment
IV
In
conclusion,
we
hold
insufficient
evidence
supports
Accordingly, we reverse
both convictions.
REVERSED
his vehicle.
He has since, however, withdrawn such challenge
because he agrees that our decision in United States v.
Stephens, 764 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
43 (2015), precludes relief on that issue in his case.
- 29 -