United States v. Jackson

Citation: 19 F. App'x 404Docket: No. 01-1014

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 14, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Johnny Jackson, a member of the Gangster Disciples, was convicted of narcotics-related offenses and sentenced to 100 years in prison. On appeal, he argues against the admissibility of wiretap evidence, previously upheld in United States v. Jackson, asserting that the government failed to seal audiotapes promptly, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(a). This court has previously rejected similar challenges in United States v. Hoover and United States v. Wilson, and Jackson presents no new arguments. 

The Gangster Disciples is a large Chicago gang involved in drug trafficking, with a structured hierarchy led by Larry Hoover. Jackson, known as 'Crusher,' served as assistant governor and later joined the board of directors before becoming a fugitive following his indictment in 1995. The government began investigating the gang in 1989, obtaining a wiretap order in 1993 that recorded significant conversations among gang members, including Jackson, during visits to Hoover in prison. These recordings, referred to as the 'Vienna tapes,' were critical to the prosecution's case. 

Prior to trial, Jackson sought to suppress the wiretap evidence, arguing the government did not seal the recordings promptly and failed to demonstrate necessity in its wiretap applications. The district court denied his motion, consistent with rulings on similar motions from his co-defendants. After a week-long trial, Jackson was convicted of conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and multiple counts of using telephones in furtherance of the conspiracy, while being acquitted on other charges. The court also denied his post-trial motion to suppress the wiretap evidence. Jackson's appeal focuses solely on this denial.

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 outlines the criteria for obtaining wiretap authorization. The government must provide a comprehensive statement detailing any prior investigative methods that have been attempted and their outcomes, as well as reasons why these methods are unlikely to succeed or may pose dangers (18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c)). Wiretap authorizations have a maximum duration of 30 days, with extensions possible if the same criteria are satisfied (18 U.S.C. 2518(5)). Upon expiration, the government is required to present the recordings of intercepted communications to the issuing judge and seal them as directed (18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(a)). Noncompliance with this sealing requirement renders the evidence inadmissible unless the government provides a satisfactory explanation, defined as being "objectively reasonable."

In the case of Jackson, the court evaluated a delay in sealing tapes from the Gangster Disciples investigation, which occurred 32 days post-authorization expiration—a delay deemed excessively long. The government’s rationale for not sealing the tapes, including the need to compare audio quality with a new device, was found inadequate, especially given that the conversations were recorded in triplicate. An assertion by the Assistant U.S. Attorney that he believed he had an "automatic 30 days" to seal the tapes was also insufficient. However, the court accepted a different explanation presented in government briefs, which stated the delay was due to an expectation that the new wiretap device would be ready soon, prompting a postponement of the sealing process until it became clear that this would not happen. This situation was seen as a miscommunication, which the court deemed a minimally satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Rehearing was denied in the case of Jackson, with no judges finding en banc rehearing necessary. Although the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration of Harold Jackson's sentence in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, the previous judgment was ultimately reinstated. Other defendants associated with the Gangster Disciples have sought to have Jackson's ruling on the government's explanation for the delay in sealing Vienna tapes reconsidered, but these requests have been denied based on the principle of stare decisis. Jackson argues against the admissibility of the wiretap evidence, claiming the government's explanation was inadequate and had been waived, referencing a concurring opinion by Judge Rovner that expressed concern over the justification provided for the delay. However, Jackson fails to present new arguments beyond those previously considered and rejected by the court. The court has reaffirmed that Jackson remains the law regarding the admissibility of the Vienna tapes. Furthermore, Jackson challenges the necessity of the wiretap applications under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c), alleging that the supporting affidavits were misleading about the investigative techniques used, thus warranting suppression of the wiretap evidence.

The court rejected Jackson's argument regarding the government's failure to demonstrate necessity for wiretap authorizations, stating it was no more persuasive than similar arguments made by co-defendants in a prior case, Hoover. Jackson's claims of the government's misleading omissions were supported by the same citations from Ninth Circuit authority used in Hoover, which had already been deemed insufficient by the court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming Jackson's conviction as it presented arguments previously considered and rejected by the court, with no en banc rehearing or Supreme Court review. Additionally, references to the Gangster Disciples' conspiracy can be found in related case law, including United States v. Smith.