Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Henley
Citation: 3 F. App'x 596Docket: Nos. 96-50697, 97-50015, 97-50020, 97-50060
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 6, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Rex Henley, Rafael Bustamante, Willie McGowan, and Garey West appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The appeals are denied, except for motions for a new trial, which are addressed separately. The appellants argue that the district court erred in admitting statements from deceased co-conspirator Eric Manning through Denise Manning. The court found no abuse of discretion in ruling both were co-conspirators and that the statements were made to further the conspiracy, making other admissibility theories unnecessary to assess. The appellants further contest the court's determination that the drug conspiracy continued until September 8, 1993, arguing against the admission of statements made after that date. The court upheld its ruling, stating no evidence of abandonment or withdrawal was presented, thus affirming the conspiracy's continuity and the admissibility of related statements. Additionally, the appellants challenge the admission of out-of-court statements by attorney Angela Wallace, arguing they were either made in furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice or by an authorized agent. While acknowledging some merit in this argument, the court deemed any error harmless due to overwhelming evidence against the appellants. The appellants also claim the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on multiple conspiracies. Since defense counsel did not object to the omission, the review is for plain error, which was not found given the evidence's weight. Lastly, the court addressed the admission of statements made during a witness's post-arrest interview on redirect examination. Although some statements exceeded the bounds of evidence rules, the court concluded that this did not substantially affect the verdict, and thus did not warrant a new trial for the appellants. Appellants McGowan and Bustamante argue that the district court wrongly admitted evidence of their prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). While the court may have erred regarding specific evidence, such as drug paraphernalia found in McGowan's apartment and Bustamante's previous drug possession, the appellate court deems these errors harmless due to the strong evidence against both appellants, including witness testimonies and phone records linking them to the conspiracy. The appellants also claim that ex parte communications between the prosecutors and the trial judge infringed on their right to be present during all proceedings, and they argue for resentencing by a different judge, citing exposure to prejudicial information. Although the appellate court acknowledges that some of these contacts are concerning, they conclude that such contacts do not warrant reversing the convictions. All appellants received sentences at or near the minimum of the Sentencing Guidelines, indicating that a remand for resentencing is unnecessary. Lastly, the appellants assert that the cumulative effect of trial errors justifies a reversal of their convictions. However, the court finds that the majority of their claims lack merit and any errors that occurred were harmless given the substantial evidence against them. The appeal is denied, except for motions regarding a new trial, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.