United States v. Aishauna Ward and Gregory Ward
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15298, 65 Fed. R. Serv. 75, 377 F.3d 671 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's silence in the face of an accusation of criminal activity can constitute an adoptive admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) if the statement was made in their presence, they understood it, and had an opportunity to deny it but did not. Furthermore, based on Blakely v. Washington, any fact that increases a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as dictated by the Sentencing Guidelines, must be found by a jury.
Facts:
- On October 26, 2001, Aishauna Ward, a TCF Bank employee, arrived for an unscheduled morning shift; soon after, a man in a bandana and hooded coat entered the bank.
- The man, later identified as Gregory Ward, pointed a gun at coworker Shantel James and demanded Aishauna fill a bag with money from the vault; Aishauna retrieved $209,000 without activating any silent alarms or placing a dye packet into the bag.
- Aishauna then traveled to the vault again to retrieve the correct surveillance tape for the robber, again ignoring six silent alarm buttons.
- After the robber forced James out of the bank at gunpoint and drove away, Aishauna did not call the police or press any alarms until James returned and prompted her.
- Six days later, Aishauna and Gregory Ward were arrested; a search of their shared home revealed over $23,000 in cash (including money in an 'FRB' bag), a black leather coat, bandana, and Gregory's gun, all similar to those used by the robber.
- Four days after the robbery, Gregory Ward had given a friend $7,200 in cash to purchase a new car for him.
- On December 8, 2001, after his release on bond, Gregory asked his sister to retrieve a $50,000 bag of cash he had given her to hold following the robbery, which was then with family friend Kimberly Gardner and her boyfriend Michael Bryant.
- During a heated discussion at Gardner's apartment about the missing money, Gregory's sister stated, 'that’s the money they got when they robbed the bank,' to which Gregory remained silent, later threatening, 'something got to give or else I’m gon’ catch a murder before I go back to jail.'
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory and Aishauna Ward were charged with conspiring to rob a bank and using a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.
- After a three-day jury trial, both Gregory and Aishauna Ward were convicted of all the charges against them in the district court.
- Gregory Ward appealed his conviction, and Aishauna Ward appealed her conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a co-defendant's silence in response to an accusation of bank robbery made in his presence constitute an adoptive admission admissible against him, and did the admission of a co-defendant's statement that implicitly implicated another co-defendant, without redaction, constitute reversible error in violation of the Confrontation Clause given a limiting instruction and overwhelming evidence of guilt? 2. Does the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by Blakely v. Washington, require a jury to find facts that increase a defendant's sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Chief Judge
Yes, Gregory Ward's silence constituted an adoptive admission, and no, the admission of a co-defendant's statement implicitly implicating Aishauna Ward was not reversible error, while yes, Blakely v. Washington requires jury findings for sentence enhancements. The court first affirmed the district court's admission of Gregory Ward's sister's statement as an adoptive admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B). Gregory's active participation in the heated discussion about the missing robbery proceeds, his proximity to the speaker, and his subsequent threatening statement demonstrated that he heard, understood, and had the opportunity to deny the accusation that the money was from the bank robbery. The court emphasized that silence in response to such an accusation, which an innocent party would normally protest, signifies adoption. Regarding Aishauna Ward's Confrontation Clause challenge to the co-defendant's statement, the court found no reversible error, applying a plain error review because she did not object at trial. The court reasoned that even if an error occurred, it was harmless because the jury received a limiting instruction to consider each defendant separately, the statement used the general term 'they' which did not directly name Ms. Ward, and there was overwhelming independent evidence of her guilt, including her actions during the robbery (failing to activate alarms, providing correct surveillance tape, not immediately calling police) and the discovery of robbery proceeds and related items in her home. Finally, the court held that under Blakely v. Washington, as interpreted in United States v. Booker, the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to decide factual issues that increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as the Sentencing Guidelines' practice of allowing judges to make such determinations by a preponderance of the evidence violates this right. Therefore, the convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with Blakely.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters of an adoptive admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), emphasizing that a defendant's conduct and conversational engagement can establish understanding and opportunity to deny, even without strict spatial confinement. It also demonstrates how a Confrontation Clause violation, specifically related to Bruton, may be deemed harmless error when there is overwhelming independent evidence of guilt and appropriate limiting instructions are provided. Most crucially, the decision applies the then-recent Blakely v. Washington ruling to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, fundamentally altering how facts used for sentence enhancements must be proven, effectively shifting this fact-finding responsibility from judges to juries for any sentence-increasing findings.
