United States v. Michael Hamilton and Nicola Messere, Also Known as Supercop
334 F.3d 170, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13433, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 896 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's acquittal on some counts, such as a complex RICO charge, does not establish compelling prejudice or prejudicial spillover requiring a new trial on other counts of conviction, especially where the split verdict indicates the jury was able to properly compartmentalize the evidence for each charge.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1998, Schenectady Police Department (SPD) officer Nicola Messere was on patrol with fellow officer Michael Siler.
- During their shift, Messere spotted one of his informants, Tina Martinez, a known crack addict.
- Messere threw a small baggie containing a substance that appeared to be crack cocaine out of the police car window for Martinez, who picked it up and smoked it.
- Separately, SPD officer Michael Hamilton maintained an informant relationship with Darla Wharry, who operated a residence for selling and using crack cocaine.
- Hamilton protected Wharry's operation by warning her of police activity and arresting other dealers in her home while leaving some of their confiscated drugs behind for her.
- On March 8, 2000, a law enforcement task force established surveillance around Wharry's residence to conduct a controlled drug buy.
- Hamilton observed the surveillance, made six calls to Wharry's residence from his cell phone, and arranged to meet her two blocks away.
- In his car, Hamilton warned Wharry about the police surveillance and told her that officers were preparing to send someone into her home wearing a wire.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Hamilton and Nicola Messere were charged in a multi-count superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (trial court).
- The indictment included charges against both for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and specific narcotics-related offenses for each defendant.
- Following a jury trial, the jury acquitted both defendants on the RICO count and acquitted Hamilton on a witness tampering count.
- The jury convicted Messere on one count of distributing crack cocaine and convicted Hamilton on one count of aiding and abetting the maintenance of a crack house and one count of using a telephone to facilitate that crime.
- Defendants moved for judgments of acquittal or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and prejudicial spillover from the RICO evidence.
- The district court denied the defendants' post-trial motions.
- Hamilton and Messere (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
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 jury's acquittal of defendants on a RICO count create compelling prejudice from 'retroactive misjoinder' or 'prejudicial spillover' that requires a new trial on separate narcotics counts for which the defendants were convicted?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the ground of retroactive misjoinder unless they can show compelling prejudice. Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate compelling prejudice because the evidence on the acquitted RICO count was not more inflammatory than the evidence on the counts of conviction, much of the evidence overlapped and would have been admissible anyway, and the evidence supporting the convictions was strong. The court reasoned that a jury's acquittal on a complex count like RICO, while convicting on other counts, is strong evidence that the jury was able to properly distinguish between the charges and the evidence pertinent to each, thereby negating any claim of prejudicial spillover. The court applied a three-part test, considering: 1) the inflammatory nature of the evidence on the acquitted count, 2) the similarity between the acquitted and convicted counts, and 3) the strength of the evidence on the convicted counts. Finding no compelling prejudice under this test, the court affirmed the convictions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold defendants must meet to prove 'retroactive misjoinder' or 'prejudicial spillover.' It establishes that a jury's selective verdict, acquitting on some counts while convicting on others, serves as powerful evidence against a claim of prejudice, suggesting the jury successfully compartmentalized the evidence. The case solidifies the Second Circuit's use of the three-part test from United States v. Vebeliunas to assess spillover claims. This makes it significantly more difficult for defendants acquitted of a broad conspiracy charge like RICO to argue that evidence from that charge unfairly tainted the jury's decision on more specific, substantive offenses.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Michael Hamilton and Nicola Messere, Also Known as Supercop