District Court Improperly Limited Government's Presentation of Evidence Supporting Allegations in Indictment
U.S. v. Schneider, No.s. 09-3028 & 09-3045 (2/8/10) (Published) - The 10th reverses a district court's prohibiting the government from presenting evidence supporting all of its allegations in one count of the indictment. The count charged the defendants with dispensing controlled substances resulting in the death of 18 people. The district court told the government it could present evidence only regarding the first listed victim, mostly because the district court didn't want the trial to last too long.
The 10th held that, given a 2002 change in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3731, the 10th had jurisdiction to consider the effective dismissal of part of a count. The 10th regarded the district court's decision as akin to dismissing a count rather than an evidentiary decision. The 10th found the court's case management had foreclosed the government from fairly presenting its case, since it was not clear at this point how much evidence the government needed to present to establish the defendants were aware of the overdose deaths and to negate any innocent mistake explanation. The district court "could not interfere with the government's ability to prosecute criminal activity any more than it could intrude upon a defendant's opportunity to defend." The evidence was not excludable as unfairly prejudicial because the evidence related to charged, not extrinsic, acts, The dismissed count was not duplicitous. Although the 10th didn't know why the government chose to put all those charges in one count, it was okay for the government to do so where they were all part of a single scheme. A specific unanimity instruction could be relied upon to ensure the jury reached a unanimous decision with respect to the allegations. The 10th also criticized the district court's limitation of the government to 10 days worth of testimony without any explanation for doing so except to conserve resources. But the 10th did not decide whether the limitation was proper because its ruling on the count-dismissal issue could change the district court's time calculus.
The 10th refused to take pendent jurisdiction of the defendants' challenge to the admission of a government expert's testimony because the issue did not meet the Cohen criteria for an interlocutory appeal. In particular, the defendants could more or less vindicate their rights on appeal after they were convicted.
The 10th held that, given a 2002 change in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3731, the 10th had jurisdiction to consider the effective dismissal of part of a count. The 10th regarded the district court's decision as akin to dismissing a count rather than an evidentiary decision. The 10th found the court's case management had foreclosed the government from fairly presenting its case, since it was not clear at this point how much evidence the government needed to present to establish the defendants were aware of the overdose deaths and to negate any innocent mistake explanation. The district court "could not interfere with the government's ability to prosecute criminal activity any more than it could intrude upon a defendant's opportunity to defend." The evidence was not excludable as unfairly prejudicial because the evidence related to charged, not extrinsic, acts, The dismissed count was not duplicitous. Although the 10th didn't know why the government chose to put all those charges in one count, it was okay for the government to do so where they were all part of a single scheme. A specific unanimity instruction could be relied upon to ensure the jury reached a unanimous decision with respect to the allegations. The 10th also criticized the district court's limitation of the government to 10 days worth of testimony without any explanation for doing so except to conserve resources. But the 10th did not decide whether the limitation was proper because its ruling on the count-dismissal issue could change the district court's time calculus.
The 10th refused to take pendent jurisdiction of the defendants' challenge to the admission of a government expert's testimony because the issue did not meet the Cohen criteria for an interlocutory appeal. In particular, the defendants could more or less vindicate their rights on appeal after they were convicted.
posted by Anonymous at 1:53 PM
<< Home