United States v. Ramseur
378 F. App'x 260 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial due to a witness's ambiguous prejudicial remark is not plain error if the remark was not deliberately elicited by the prosecutor, the court issued a prompt curative instruction, and the jury's verdict indicates it was not improperly influenced. Furthermore, a sentencing court may apply a murder cross-reference enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d) when it finds, based on reliable evidence including hearsay and witness credibility assessments, that the murders were 'relevant conduct' under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, occurring during and in furtherance of a drug conspiracy.
Facts:
- Between 1999 and 2004, Rickie Eckles ran a drug distribution operation in and around Statesville, North Carolina.
- Sometime in the early 2000s, Rickie Eckles formed an association with Travis Ramseur, through which Ramseur bought bulk quantities of drugs and resold them.
- On May 25, 2001, Demetrius Thompson and Travis Ramseur, along with O’Kiera Myers, went to Roxanne Eckles's apartment and shot into it, killing John Lewis Davis, in retaliation for a theft of drug proceeds by a dealer named Nakia White.
- In November 2004, rival drug dealers Angelo Stockton and Timothy Cook had been engaged in a longstanding feud with Travis Ramseur and his associates, involving prior gunfire exchanges.
- On November 16, 2004, after a fight at a drinking establishment, several of Ramseur's associates summoned him, and Ramseur, with Al Bellamy, drove to the establishment where they encountered Stockton and Cook outside and shot and killed both.
- During Travis Ramseur’s trial for drug conspiracy, Rickie Eckles testified, when asked when he stopped selling drugs to Ramseur, that his last time dealing with him was “the time when the murder charge.”
Procedural Posture:
- Travis Ramseur was indicted by a grand jury for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846.
- Ramseur was tried for four days in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (trial court).
- A jury convicted Ramseur of the sole count, attributing maximum amounts of crack and cocaine and the minimum amount of marijuana.
- The United States Probation Office prepared a presentence report recommending an offense level of 43 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d) based on Ramseur's responsibility for three murders.
- Ramseur filed an objection to the application of the sentencing enhancement.
- The district court, after a four-day sentencing hearing, overruled Ramseur’s objection, found him "directly accountable" for the murders, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Ramseur, as Appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 district court commit plain error by failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial when a witness makes an ambiguous reference to a 'murder charge' during testimony, which the court immediately strikes and instructs the jury to disregard, and the prosecution did not elicit the comment? 2. Does a district court clearly err in applying a U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d) sentencing enhancement for murder when it credits a cooperating witness's hearsay testimony that the murders were drug-related, despite other witnesses' lack of knowledge about the specific motive, thereby finding the murders to be 'relevant conduct' under § 1B1.3?
Opinions:
Majority - Duncan, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial. The court determined that Rickie Eckles's comment about a "murder charge" was ambiguous and did not provide specific insight into who was charged, thus it was "hardly prejudicial" to Ramseur. Even if it were prejudicial, the court applied the Dorsey factors and found that the prosecutor did not seek to elicit the comment, the district court immediately gave a firm instruction for the jury to disregard it, the jury’s verdict (attributing maximum crack/cocaine but minimum marijuana) demonstrated it was not improperly influenced, and the weight of the evidence against Ramseur for the drug conspiracy was overwhelming. Therefore, Ramseur failed to show that the comment was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial. No, the district court did not clearly err in applying the sentencing enhancement for murder. The court found that Ramseur's challenge to the district court’s credibility determination of witness Tyrone Brandon was insufficient to warrant reversal, as such findings are afforded the "highest degree of appellate deference." Brandon testified that co-conspirator Al Bellamy told him the Brevard Street murders were over drugs because one victim refused to pay for drugs fronted by another co-conspirator. The court noted that it is standard practice for the government to use cooperating witnesses and that district courts can rely on hearsay testimony at sentencing if it bears "sufficient indicia of reliability," even from convicted felons seeking sentence reductions. The court also determined that other witnesses' lack of knowledge about the feud's cause, or their suggestion of a "territory" dispute, did not logically preclude the finding that drugs were a principal reason for the murders. Thus, the murders were committed in furtherance of Ramseur's drug conspiracy and were relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent standard for appellate review of a district court's decision not to declare a mistrial sua sponte, especially when a curative instruction is given, and the potentially prejudicial remark is ambiguous and not solicited by the prosecution. It highlights the significant deference appellate courts grant to district courts' factual findings and credibility determinations during sentencing, particularly regarding the use of cooperating witness testimony, even if it is hearsay, to establish 'relevant conduct' for sentencing enhancements. The ruling clarifies that a district court may rely on reliable evidence to ascertain the motive behind violent acts within a drug conspiracy, even when other evidence of motive is less clear or conflicting, thereby allowing for the application of serious sentencing enhancements.
