United States v. Anthony Thompson, Stephanie Johnson, Anthony D. Spradley
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6493, 286 F.3d 950, 58 Fed. R. Serv. 1500 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant waives their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and hearsay objections to a witness's statements if a coconspirator's misconduct, such as murder, procured the witness's unavailability, provided the misconduct was in furtherance of, within the scope of, and reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
Facts:
- From 1992 to 1997, Willie Boddie, Stephanie Johnson, Dennis Jones, Anthony Spradley, Anthony Thompson, Ellis Walker, and Mark White participated in a large-scale cocaine trafficking conspiracy based in Indianapolis.
- In November 1996, Marcus Willis began working as a confidential informant for law enforcement, gathering information on the conspiracy.
- Coconspirator Keith Cork testified that several days before the murder, he and Spradley confronted Willis about rumors that he was talking to the police.
- Cork also testified that in a meeting about Willis's informant activities, Spradley stated that he would not let anyone hurt the members of the conspiracy.
- In June 1997, Marcus Willis was shot and killed inside a Yukon vehicle owned and frequently operated by coconspirator Mark White.
- Following the murder, several coconspirators, including Spradley, Jones, and White, engaged in a cover-up, attempting to clean the vehicle of forensic evidence and arrange for its repair.
- Stephanie Johnson assisted the conspiracy by allowing members to purchase vehicles, homes, and motorcycles in her name to conceal the illegal source of the funds and the true owners.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Boddie, Stephanie Johnson, Dennis Jones, Anthony Spradley, and others were charged with drug conspiracy and other crimes in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- Prior to trial, the government moved to admit hearsay statements made by a murdered informant, Marcus Willis, arguing the defendants had waived their objections under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6).
- The district court granted the government's motion, admitting Willis's statements against all defendants based on a theory of coconspirator liability for the murder.
- Following a trial, the jury convicted all appealing defendants of drug conspiracy, except for Stephanie Johnson, who was convicted only on money laundering charges.
- The jury acquitted defendants Spradley, Jones, and White on all charges directly related to the murder of Marcus Willis.
- At sentencing, the district court applied the murder cross reference from U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1) to defendants Spradley, Jones, and White, resulting in life sentences for their drug conspiracy convictions.
- The convicted defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. 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:
Does a defendant who did not directly participate in murdering a witness waive their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and hearsay objections to the witness's statements if the murder was a reasonably foreseeable act committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A defendant's waiver of Confrontation Clause rights and hearsay objections may be imputed from a coconspirator's misconduct if that misconduct was within the scope, in furtherance of, and reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. In adopting the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in United States v. Cherry, the court holds that coconspirator waiver is consistent with the principles of waiver-by-misconduct, Rule 804(b)(6)'s use of the term 'acquiesce,' and the doctrine of conspiratorial liability established in Pinkerton v. United States. This rule prevents conspirators from benefiting from witness tampering committed by their partners. However, the court found that while Willis's murder was in furtherance of the conspiracy, it was not reasonably foreseeable to defendants Johnson and Thompson, as there was no evidence the conspiracy had previously engaged in murder. The admission of Willis's statements against them was deemed harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of their guilt. The court also held that for sentencing purposes under the murder cross-reference, a defendant's participation in a cover-up is insufficient, by itself, to prove that the premeditated murder was reasonably foreseeable to them, leading to a remand for resentencing for Jones and White.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the doctrine of coconspirator waiver-by-misconduct in the Seventh Circuit, aligning it with the Tenth Circuit. This significantly expands the government's ability to use out-of-court statements from a witness who has been silenced by any member of a conspiracy against all other members, provided the government meets the foreseeability standard. The ruling strengthens prosecutors' hands in complex conspiracy cases involving witness tampering or murder by preventing defendants from benefiting from a coconspirator's violent acts. However, the court's careful application of the 'reasonable foreseeability' standard, both for the waiver issue and for sentencing enhancements, underscores that liability is not automatic and requires a particularized inquiry into each defendant's knowledge and the conspiracy's known tendencies.
