United States v. Melvin, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Melvin, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1332

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J AMES MELVI N,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Sel ya and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Edwar d J . O' Br i en, wi t h whom O' Donnel l , Tr ossel l o & O' Br i enwas on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Al ex J . Gr ant , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

September 17, 2013


2/23

SELYA, Circuit Judge. I n cri mi nal cases, pr of f er

sessi ons are commonl y used as a means of f aci l i t at i ng pl ea

negot i at i ons. A def endant ' s agr eement t o par t i ci pat e i n a pr of f er

sessi on car r i es wi t h i t bot h pot ent i al r i sks and pot ent i al r ewar ds.

To prot ect t he pr of f er i ng def endant agai nst unf ai r ness,

pr osecut or s cust omar i l y of f er assur ances t hat t hey wi l l not use

what t he def endant r eveal s at t he pr of f er sessi on agai nst hi m

shoul d pl ea negot i at i ons f ai l . I n t hi s case of f i r st i mpr essi on,

t he government pr omi sed t he def endant t hat i t woul d not use agai nst

hi m any " st at ement s made or other i nf or mat i on" di scl osed at t he

pr of f er sessi on.

The prof f er sess i on came t o naught . When t r i al became

i mmi nent , t he gover nment at t empt ed t o pul l a rabbi t out of a hat :

i t advi sed t he def endant t hat , not wi t hst andi ng i t s ear l i er

assur ances, i t pl anned t o i nt r oduce at t r i al voi ce i dent i f i cat i on

t est i mony f r om a pol i ce of f i cer , based on what t he of f i cer had

hear d at t he pr of f er sessi on, l i nki ng t he def endant t o a hi ghl y

i ncr i mi nat i ng r ecor ded t el ephone conver sat i on. Al t hough t he cour t

f ound the gover nment ' s pl an "t r oubl i ng, " i t nonet hel ess deni ed t he

def endant ' s mot i on i n l i mi ne and al l owed t he government t o pr esent

t he t est i mony. The j ur y r et ur ned a gui l t y ver di ct .

On appeal , t he def endant advances t hr ee cl ai ms of er r or ,

i ncl udi ng a renewed chal l enge t o the i nt r oduct i on of t he voi ce

i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony. Wi t h r espect t o t hi s pi vot al i ssue, we

- 2-


3/23

concl ude t hat t he admi ssi on of t he t est i mony t r ansgr essed t he

pr of f er agr eement and t he def endant ' s due pr ocess r i ght s. On t he

assumpt i on t hat such a t r ansgressi on i s subj ect t o har ml ess er r or

r evi ew, we concl ude t hat t he pr oper bar omet er f or t hat r evi ew

r equi r es us t o ask whether t he government has shown that t he er r or

was har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Because t he government has

not carr i ed t hi s heavy bur den, we vacate t he def endant ' s

convi ct i on.

The mor al of t hi s st or y i s t hat , especi al l y when deal i ng

wi t h cr i mi nal def endant s at pr of f er sessi ons, t he gover nment must

t ur n square corners. The government di d not do so here.

I. BACKGROUND

On Febr uar y 19, 2010, an agent of t he Federal Bureau of

I nvest i gat i on ( FBI ) , J ef f r ey Lawr ence, wor ki ng wi t h ot her l aw

enf or cement per sonnel , set i n mot i on a cont r ol l ed pur chase of cr ack

cocai ne. The l eadi ng man i n t he pr oduct i on was a cooper at i ng

wi t ness, Rober t Wi l l i ams. The agent s equi pped Wi l l i ams wi t h vi deo

and audi o r ecor ders, and a Massachuset t s st at e t r ooper , Thomas

Fi t zger al d, sear ched hi m t o ensure t hat he had no dr ugs or ot her

cont r aband on hi s per son.

Wi l l i ams t hen made a recorded t el ephone cal l t o the

t ar get of t he st i ng, Ant hony Hook. Dur i ng t hi s cal l , Hook agr eed

- 3-


4/23

t o sel l " t hr ee and a t eent h" of cr ack cocai ne1 f or $500, and handed

t he t el ephone t o anot her i ndi vi dual t o ar r ange t he exchange. That

i ndi vi dual , a st r anger t o Wi l l i ams, set up a meet i ng at t he par ki ng

l ot of a package st or e ( a ret ai l l i quor empor i um) and st at ed t hat

he was wear i ng a bl ack j acket . Wi l l i ams r epl i ed t hat he woul d be

dr i vi ng a bl ue Chevy Bl azer .

Af t er t he cal l , Agent Lawr ence gave Wi l l i ams $500 t o make

t he buy. Wi l l i ams t hen dr ove t o t he package st ore under t he

wat chf ul eye of agent s i n a sur vei l l ance van. Al ong t he way, he

st opped f or gas and spent a br i ef i nt er l ude unat t ended i nsi de t he

gas st at i on' s st or e.

Af t er Wi l l i ams arr i ved at t he desi gnat ed par ki ng l ot ,

def endant - appel l ant J ames Mel vi n, wear i ng bl ack cl ot hi ng, ent er ed

hi s vehi cl e. Thi s encount er was sur r ept i t i ousl y vi deot aped.

Wi l l i ams asked the def endant , "What we got r i ght her e?"

The def endant answer ed, "Three bal l s and a t eent h. " The vi deot ape

shows t he def endant r emovi ng an uni dent i f i abl e obj ect f r om hi s

wai st band. At t r i al , Wi l l i ams test i f i ed t hat t he obj ect was cr ack

cocai ne, whi ch t he def endant wei ghed on a scal e and sol d t o hi mf or

$500. The def endant t hen di sembarked f r om t he vehi cl e.

1 Test i mony at t r i al i ndi cat ed t hat t he quant i t y ment i onedr ef er r ed t o t hr ee "ei ght bal l s, " each compr i si ng one- ei ght h of anounce of cr ack cocai ne, pl us one- si xteent h of an ounce of cr ackcocai ne.

- 4-


5/23

As Wi l l i ams began t o l eave, he was appr oached by a f ami l y

f r i end who "sl apped hi m f i ve" t hr ough t he open wi ndow of hi s

vehi cl e. Wi l l i ams' s next st op was a meet i ng wi t h gover nment

agent s, wher e he sur r ender ed a bag of cr ack cocai ne, a scal e, and

t he recor di ng equi pment .

The def endant was not i mmedi at el y ar r est ed. For r easons

not r el evant her e, he l at er wound up i n st ate cust ody. Tr ooper

Fi t zger al d happened t o be pr esent dur i ng t he def endant ' s booki ng

and r ecogni zed hi mas t he per son who had ent er ed Wi l l i ams' s vehi cl e

on Febr uary 19 ( al most t wo mont hs ear l i er ) . The t r ooper r eport ed

t hi s bi t of ser endi pi t y t o Agent Lawr ence. On Apr i l 22, 2010, t he

l at t er showed Wi l l i ams an arr ay of ni ne photogr aphs ( one of whi ch

depi ct ed t he def endant ) and asked hi mt o i dent i f y t he sel l er of t he

cocai ne. Wi l l i ams chose t he def endant ' s photogr aph.

A f eder al gr and j ur y si t t i ng i n t he Di st r i ct of

Massachuset t s subsequent l y i ndi ct ed t he def endant on a si ngl e count

of possessi ng cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e. See 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) . The i ndi ct ment was r etur ned on May 20, 2010. That

same day, l aw enf orcement per sonnel , i ncl udi ng Of f i cer J ames Mazza,

a Spr i ngf i el d pol i ce of f i cer ( who had been par t of t he Febr uar y 19

sur vei l l ance t eam) , i nt er vi ewed t he def endant at a pr of f er sessi on.

The prof f er sessi on was hel d pur suant t o a wr i t t en prof f er

agr eement draf t ed by the government .

- 5-


6/23

The pr of f er sessi on proved f r ui t l ess and t he def endant

pr oceeded t o t r i al . The gover nment posi t ed t hat t he def endant sol d

crack cocai ne t o Wi l l i ams i n t he par ki ng l ot . As par t of i t s case

i n chi ef , t he gover nment cal l ed Of f i cer Mazza t o t est i f y t hat he

had f ami l i ar i zed hi msel f wi t h t he def endant ' s voi ce dur i ng t he

pr of f er sessi on and, t hr ough t hat acqui r ed knowl edge, coul d

i dent i f y t he def endant as t he unknown speaker who had part i ci pated

i n t he Febr uary 19 t el ephone cal l . The def ense at t empt ed t o poi nt

t he f i nger at Wi l l i ams, i mpl yi ng t hat he had acqui r ed t he cr ack

cocai ne el sewhere and had st aged mat t ers so as t o shi f t t he bl ame

t o t he def endant .

The j ury f ound t he def endant gui l t y. Af t er t he

i mposi t i on of sent ence, t hi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. ANALYSIS

I n t hi s venue, t he def endant advances t hr ee cl ai ms of

er r or . Thi s l i t any i ncl udes a cl ai mt hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have suppr essed the phot o ar r ay i dent i f i cat i on as i mper mi ssi bl y

suggest i ve and unr el i abl e; a cl ai mt hat Wi l l i ams' s t est i mony shoul d

have been excl uded because a gover nment agent had t ol d hi m t hat

payment f or hi s ser vi ces depended on f ut ur e convi ct i ons; and a

cl ai mt hat al l owi ng Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony

- 6-


7/23

vi ol at ed hi s due pr ocess r i ght s. 2 We address t hese ar gument s i n

i nver se or der of di f f i cul t y.

A. The Photo Array.

We need not l i nger l ong over t he def endant ' s chal l enge t o

t he phot o ar r ay. The def endant f i l ed a pr et r i al mot i on t o suppr ess

t hi s i dent i f i cat i on, ar gui ng t hat onl y t wo of t he ni ne phot ogr aphs

wer e "cl ose- ups" ( one depi ct i ng t he def endant , t he other a man wi t h

a bear d and a f aci al scar ) ; and t hat due t o t hi s pecul i ar i t y, t he

ar r ay was bot h unr el i abl e and i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve. The

di st r i ct cour t deemed t hi s ar gument unconvi nci ng and so do we.

To wi t hhol d phot o ar r ay i dent i f i cat i on evi dence f r om a

j ury, a cour t must be "persuaded t hat t here was a ver y subst ant i al

l i kel i hood of i r r epar abl e mi si dent i f i cat i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri ver a- Ri ver a, 555 F. 3d 277, 282 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s anal ysi s pr oceeds i n t wo st eps.

Fi r st , t he cour t must det er mi ne whet her t he i dent i f i cat i on

pr ocedur e was i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve. I f i t was not , t he i nqui r y

ends. I f , however , t he def endant can successf ul l y negot i at e t hi s

f i r st st ep, t he cour t must t hen exami ne t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances t o ascer t ai n whet her t he i dent i f i cat i on was

2 The gover nment asser t s t hat bot h t he second and t hi r d cl ai msof er r or ar e pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed because t he def endant di d notr ai se t hem squarel y enough i n t he cour t bel ow. Our exami nat i on oft he r ecor d sat i sf i es us t hat bot h cl ai ms ar e pr eser ved.

- 7-


8/23

never t hel ess r el i abl e. See Uni t ed St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d

36, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Our r evi ew of a di st r i ct cour t ' s bot t om- l i ne concl usi ons

about r el i abi l i t y and suggest i veness i s pl enar y. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Espi nal - Al mei da, 699 F. 3d 588, 602 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , cer t .

deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 1837 ( 2013) . We r evi ew any under l yi ng f i ndi ngs

of f act f or cl ear er r or . See i d.

The def endant ' s assi gnment of er r or f al t er s at t he f i r st

st ep of t he t wo- st ep pavane. As t he di st r i ct cour t not ed, t he

def endant ' s photogr aph shows hi m onl y "somewhat cl oser t o t he

camer a" t han other s. Mi nor di f f er ences wi t hi n t he component s of a

phot o ar r ay are t o be expect ed and, wi t hout more, do not r ender t he

i dent i f i cat i on pr ocedur e i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Br enni ck, 405 F. 3d 96, 99- 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

Her e, t her e i s no "mor e. "

To dwel l on t hi s aspect of t he case woul d be poi nt l ess .

J uror s shoul d not be t r eat ed as gul l i bl e dupes, see Manson v.

Br at hwai t e, 432 U. S. 98, 116 ( 1977) , and phot o ar r ay i dent i f i cat i on

evi dence shoul d be wi t hhel d f r om t hem "onl y i n ext r aor di nar y

cases, " Ri ver a- Ri ver a, 555 F. 3d at 282 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . The photo arr ay her e was unexcept i onabl e, and t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he mot i on t o suppr ess was pr oper .

- 8-


9/23

B. The Bounty.

I n an argument t hat r emi nds us t hat t he l ove of money i s

t he r oot of al l evi l , see I Ti mot hy 6: 10, t he def endant asser t s

t hat t he gover nment ' s quondam f i nanci al ar r angement wi t h Wi l l i ams

dol l ar s f or convi ct i ons so t ai nt ed hi s t est i mony as t o wor k a

vi ol at i on of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, U. S. Const . amend. V. Thi s i s

a cl oser quest i on, but we ul t i mat el y concl ude t hat t he pr osecut or ' s

t i mel y i nt er vent i on and t he depl oyment of ef f ect i ve saf eguar ds

suf f i ced t o mi t i gat e t he t ai nt of whi ch t he def endant compl ai ns.

The r el evant f act s ar e not di sput ed. Wi l l i ams di d not

agr ee t o ser ve as a gover nment cooper ator f or l ove of count r y but ,

r at her , because t he government promi sed t o compensat e hi m. Bet ween

December of 2010 and March of 2011, Agent Lawr ence t ol d hi m on

appr oxi mat el y si x occasi ons t hat he woul d be pai d onl y when t he

gover nment had obt ai ned t hr ee convi ct i ons t hr ough hi s cooper at i on.

When t he pr osecut or l ear ned of t hi s t awdr y ar r angement ,

he put an end t o i t . On March 16, 2011, he r eveal ed t he

ar r angement t o def ense counsel and expl ai ned t hat he had di r ect ed

Agent Lawr ence t o di sabuse Wi l l i ams of t he not i on t hat f ut ur e

payment s woul d be cont i ngent upon convi ct i ons. At a meet i ng hel d

soon t her eaf t er , Agent Lawr ence, f l anked by t wo pr osecut or s, t ol d

Wi l l i ams t hat he woul d be pai d f or hi s ser vi ces, not f or

convi ct i ons.

- 9-


10/23

Pr i or t o t r i al , t he def endant moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude

Wi l l i ams' s t est i mony as i r r evocabl y cor r upt ed by t he or i gi nal

bount y ar r angement . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on, ci t i ng

t he gover nment ' s l at er di savowal and di scl ai mer of t hat

ar r angement .

I n appeal i ng t hi s r ul i ng, t he def endant pl aces heavy

r el i ance on pr i or deci si ons of t hi s cour t t hat cont ai n l anguage

condemni ng wi t ness compensat i on cont i ngent upon convi ct i ons.

Uni t ed St at es v. Cr est a, 825 F. 2d 538 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Dai l ey, 759 F. 2d 192 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) . Thi s l anguage, he

i nsi st s, shoul d have l ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o excl ude Wi l l i ams' s

t est i mony.

I n Dai l ey, we exami ned pl ea agr eement s i n whi ch t he

government ' s pr omi se t o recommend l eni ency depended on t he "val ue"

or "benef i t " of cooper at i on t o t he gover nment . 759 F. 2d at 194- 97.

We hel d t hat "est abl i shed saf eguar ds" i nf or mi ng t he j ur y of t he

pr eci se nat ur e of t he ar r angement , cr oss- exami nat i on, and speci f i c

i nst r uct i ons t o wei gh t he cooper at i ng wi t ness' s t est i mony wi t h car e

woul d adequat el y pr ot ect t he def endant ' s due pr ocess r i ght s

agai nst any pot ent i al pr ej udi ce ar i si ng f r om t he gover nment ' s

pr omi se. I d. at 196- 97, 200.

Dai l ey i s not di r ect l y appl i cabl e t o thi s case because we

t ook pai ns t o di st i ngui sh t he agr eement s at i ssue t her e f r om t hose

i n whi ch a "pr omi sed benef i t i s made cont i ngent upon a r esul t i ng

- 10-


11/23

i ndi ct ment or convi ct i on. " I d. at 197. However , our deci si on

acknowl edged i n di ct umt hat we coul d " t hi nk of no i nst ance i n whi ch

t he government woul d be j ust i f i ed i n maki ng a pr omi sed benef i t

cont i ngent upon t he r et ur n of an i ndi ct ment or a gui l t y ver di ct . "

I d. at 201. We added " t hat benef i t s made cont i ngent upon

subsequent i ndi ct ment s or convi ct i ons skat e ver y cl ose t o, i f

i ndeed t hey do not cr oss, t he l i mi t s i mposed by t he due pr ocess

cl ause. " I d. at 201 n. 9.

Di ct um i n Cr est a r ei nf or ced t hese obser vat i ons. Though

not f aced wi t h an act ual bount y ar r angement t her e, we r ei t er ated

t hat "we woul d not condone" an agr eement promi si ng such cont i ngent

benef i t s. 825 F. 2d at 547.

We do not r et r eat f r omwhat we sai d i n Dai l ey and Cr est a:

we cont i nue t o vi ew t he pr act i ce of condi t i oni ng a wi t ness' s

benef i t s upon t he i nci dence of f ut ur e i ndi ct ment s or convi ct i ons as

per ni ci ous. A cooper at or whose eyes ar e f i xed on such a pr i ze

mi ght wel l be t empt ed t o wander f r omt he pat h of candor and, t hus,

undul y pr ej udi ce t he cr i mi nal def endant .

We add, moreover , t hat such bount y ar r angement s ar e

l i kel y t o boomer ang agai nst pr osecut or s. Af t er al l , f ee

arr angement s t hat are cont i ngent upon t he secur i ng of i ndi ct ment s

or convi ct i ons det r act mi ght i l y f r oma cooper at or ' s cr edi bi l i t y at

t r i al . We are, t her ef ore, puzzl ed as t o why t he gover nment woul d

- 11-


12/23

empl oy such a tact i c more t han a quar t er cent ur y af t er we had t wi ce

di sappr oved of i t .

Her e, however , t he st ory does not end wi t h a wi t ness

l abor i ng under t he bel i ef t hat convi ct i on and convi ct i on al one

wi l l ear n hi mhi s keep. Bef or e Wi l l i ams was cal l ed t o t est i f y, t he

pr osecut or pul l ed hi m back f r omt he abyss and removed the unsavory

l ur e of dol l ar s f or convi ct i ons. None of our pr i or cases addr ess

such a si t uat i on, even i n di ct um.

I n our vi ew, t he pr osecut or ' s i nt er vent i on, coupl ed wi t h

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s pr ophyl acti c i nst r ucti ons, makes al l t he

di f f er ence. Wi t h t he bount y t aken unequi vocal l y of f t he t abl e, we

t hi nk t hat t he quest i on of how t o pr oceed was wi t hi n t he sound

di scr et i on of t he t r i al cour t .

Her e, t he cour t deci ded t hat sunl i ght was a suf f i ci ent

di si nf ect ant . The natur e of t he bount y arr angement and t he

pr osecut or ' s ef f or t s t o r ect i f y t he pr obl emwer e f ul l y di scl osed t o

t he j ur y. Wi l l i ams was subj ect t o cr oss- exami nat i on on t hese

poi nt s as wel l as on hi s over al l t est i mony. As a f ur t her

saf eguar d, t he di st r i ct cour t gave pel l uci d i nst r uct i ons t hat t he

j ury shoul d consi der t he t est i mony of t he cooperat i ng wi t ness "wi t h

part i cul ar caut i on" and an eye t oward "whet her hi s t est i mony has

been af f ect ed by hi s i nt er est i n mai nt ai ni ng hi s r el at i onshi p wi t h

t he gover nment or by any of t he benef i t s he has r ecei ved f r om t he

gover nment . " I n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, we t hi nk that t hi s

- 12-


13/23

set of saf eguards was adequate t o pr otect t he def endant ' s due

pr ocess r i ght s. When al l i s sai d and done, we cannot set asi de a

def endant ' s convi ct i on si mpl y because we di sappr ove of some aspect

of t he gover nment ' s handl i ng of t he case. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Sant ana, 6 F. 3d 1, 9- 11 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( di scussi ng l i mi t s of

super vi sory power ) . On t hi s r ecor d, we concl ude t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s t i mel y and unequi vocal cor r ect i on of Agent Lawr ence' s

bl under combi ned wi t h t he ef f ect i ve saf eguards t hat were empl oyed

at t r i al suf f i ced t o pr event a due pr ocess vi ol at i on.

C. The Proffer Agreement.

The def endant ' s f i nal cl ai mof er r or i s t he most vexi ng.

The def endant agreed t o appear at a prof f er sess i on. That sess i on

was governed by a wr i t t en agr eement , draf t ed by the government ,

whi ch st at ed i n per t i nent par t :

1. No st at ement s made or ot her i nf ormat i on

pr ovi ded by [ t he def endant ] wi l l be used byt he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney di r ect l y agai nsthi m, except f or pur poses of cr oss- exami nat i onand/ or i mpeachment . . . .

2. The government may make der i vat i ve use of ,or may pur sue any i nvest i gat i ve l eadssuggest ed by, any st at ement s made or ot heri nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by [ t he def endant ] i n t hecour se of t he pr of f er .

Of f i cer Mazza at t ended t hi s pr of f er sessi on on behal f of

t he government and became f ami l i ar wi t h t he def endant ' s voi ce

t hr ough hi s at t endance. When pl ea negot i at i ons crat er ed and t r i al

became necessary, t he gover nment sought t o have hi m i dent i f y t he

- 13-


14/23

def endant ' s voi ce on t he i ncul pat or y r ecor di ng of t he Febr uar y 19

t el ephone cal l . The def endant moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude t hi s

t est i mony, ar gui ng t hat i t was a di r ect use of "ot her i nf or mat i on"

pr ovi ded by t he def endant hi s voi ce t one and char act er i st i cs at

t he pr of f er sessi on. Even t hough t he di st r i ct cour t acknowl edged

t hat t he gover nment ' s t act i c l ef t "a bad t ast e, " i t deni ed t he

mot i on. The cour t r easoned t hat t he Cr i mi nal Rul es pr ot ect a

def endant ' s st at ement s at a pr of f er sessi on but not t he sound of

hi s voi ce.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng f ai l s t o t ake i nt o account

t he act ual l anguage of t he pr of f er agr eement . To t hi s ext ent , i t s

appr oach was i ncor r ect . I nf ormal i mmuni t y agr eement s, such as

pr of f er agr eement s, "ar e shaped . . . by the l anguage of t he

cont r act conf er r i ng t he i mmuni t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Hogan, 862

F. 2d 386, 388 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) . The di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

l ooked, t her ef or e, t o t he t ext of t he pr of f er agr eement . The

meani ng of t he pr of f er agr eement pr esent s a quest i on of l aw, whi ch

engender s de novo r evi ew. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St ates v. At wood, 963

F. 2d 476, 478 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . I n per f or mi ng t hi s i nt er pr et at i ve

t ask, we ar e gui ded chi ef l y by cont r act - l aw pr i nci pl es. See Uni t ed

St at es v. McLaughl i n, 957 F. 2d 12, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ; Hogan, 862

F. 2d at 388.

I n t he case at hand, t he r el evant cont r act - l aw pr i nci pl e

i s t hat "whenever possi bl e, cont r act s shoul d be const r ued t o gi ve

- 14-


15/23

ef f ect t o ever y wor d, cl ause, and phr ase. " Cr owe v. Bol duc, 365

F. 3d 86, 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Al egr i a, 192 F. 3d

179, 185 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . Thus, t he phr ase "ot her i nf or mat i on, "

whi ch appears i n t he prof f er agr eement , must mean somet hi ng

di f f er ent f r om t he ant ecedent t er m "st at ement s" ( whi ch r ef er s t o

st at ement s t hat t he def endant mi ght make at t he pr of f er sessi on) .

Any ot her i nt er pr et at i on woul d render t he phr ase "ot her

i nf or mat i on" r edundant ( and, t hus, meani ngl ess) .

Vi ewed i n cont ext , we t hi nk t hat t he nat ur al , common-

sense i nt er pr et at i on of t he phr ase "ot her i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by

[ t he def endant ] " i n t he pr of f er agr eement encompasses any knowl edge

t he gover nment gai ned at t he pr of f er sessi on because of t he

def endant ' s pr esence t her e. See, e. g. , Webst er ' s Thi r d New

I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y 1160 ( 2002) ( def i ni ng "i nf or mat i on" as

"knowl edge communi cated by ot her s or obt ai ned f r om i nvest i gat i on,

st udy, or i nst r uct i on" ) . As such, knowl edge of t he def endant ' s

voi ce t one, i nf l ect i ons, and speaki ng char act er i st i cs gl eaned f r om

t he def endant ' s speech at t he pr of f er sessi on i s "ot her

i nf or mat i on" t hat cannot be used agai nst t he def endant i n t he

gover nment ' s case i n chi ef . But t hat i s exact l y what t he

gover nment di d: i t el i ci t ed t est i mony f r omOf f i cer Mazza on di r ect

exami nat i on about t he knowl edge of t he def endant ' s voi ce t hat he

acqui r ed at t he pr of f er sessi on and t hen, bui l di ng on t hat

f oundat i on, had Of f i cer Mazza i dent i f y t he def endant as t he t hi r d

- 15-


16/23

person who spoke dur i ng t he recor ded conver sat i on between Wi l l i ams

and Hook.

I f more were needed and we doubt t hat i t i s anot her

set t l ed pr i nci pl e of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on counsel s i n f avor of

r eadi ng t he phr ase "other i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded" by t he def endant

br oadl y. Under t he doct r i ne of cont r a pr of er ent em an ambi guous

t er m i n a cont r act nor mal l y shoul d be const r ued agai nst t he

i nt er est of t he dr af t er , and t hi s pr axi s appl i es t o pr of f er

agr eement s. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l l , 643 F. 3d 807, 875- 76

( 11t h Ci r . 2011) . Her e, t he phr ase "ot her i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded" by

t he def endant cannot be sai d unambi guousl y t o excl ude t he t one,

i nf l ect i on, and ot her char act er i st i cs of t he def endant ' s voi ce.

St r uggl i ng t o par r y t hese t hr ust s, t he gover nment

suggest s t hat t he l anguage "st at ement s made and ot her i nf ormat i on

pr ovi ded" i n the pr of f er agr eement was meant t o mi r r or t he

di st i nct i on bet ween use i mmuni t y f or or al t est i mony and act - of -

pr oduct i on i mmuni t y f or document s and other t angi bl e t hi ngs. See

18 U. S. C. 6001- 6003. Thi s suggest i on i s nothi ng more t han an

at t empt t o r ewr i t e t he pr of f er agr eement : t he government coul d have

f r amed such a di chot omy when i t dr af t ed t he pr of f er agr eement , but

i t di d not do so. Whatever may be t he cont our s of f ormal use

i mmuni t y gr ant ed by cour t s, i t i s t he l anguage of t he pr of f er

agr eement , not t he l anguage of t he i mmuni t y st atut e, t hat def i nes

t he par t i es' r i ght s and r esponsi bi l i t i es ar i si ng out of a pr of f er

- 16-


17/23

sessi on. See Hogan, 862 F. 2d at 388. Consequent l y, we r ej ect out

of hand t he gover nment ' s st r ai ned at t empt t o f orge an anal ogy.

The gover nment al so cont ends t hat t he phr ase "ot her

i nf or mat i on" cannot encompass t he def endant ' s t one, i nf l ect i ons,

and ot her vocal char act er i st i cs because i t coul d have successf ul l y

moved t o compel a voi ce exempl ar f r om t he def endant . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Di oni si o, 410 U. S. 1, 5- 7 ( 1973) . To but t r ess t hi s

cont ent i on, t he government muses t hat t he pr of f er agr eement shoul d

not be read t o pr otect i nf ormat i on t hat t he gover nment coul d have

procur ed by compul si on.

Thi s cont ent i on i s f ut i l e. We ar e not concer ned wi t h

what t he government mi ght have done but , r at her , wi t h what t he

gover nment di d. See Uni t ed St ates v. Sant ana, 175 F. 3d 57, 64 n. 6

( 1st Ci r . 1999) . The gover nment never moved f or a voi ce exempl ar

her e. I nst ead, i t r el i ed on i t s ( mi st aken) i nt er pr et at i on of t he

pr of f er agr eement . Much as i t mi ght l i ke t o do so, i t cannot

r ei nvent t hat agr eement now.

The shor t of i t i s t hat t he exi st ence of a paral l el

uni ver se i n whi ch t he gover nment pr oper l y obt ai ned i t s sought - af t er

i nf or mat i on does not r ender i t s mi sst ep i n t hi s one any l ess

vi ol at i ve of t he def endant ' s due pr ocess r i ght s. A const i t ut i onal

end may not be r eached by unconst i t ut i onal means.

I n a l ast - di t ch ef f or t t o save t he day, t he gover nment

not es t hat t he pr of f er agr eement per mi t s der i vat i ve uses of

- 17-


18/23

"st at ement s made or ot her i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded" by t he def endant

dur i ng t he pr of f er sessi on. Cl i ngi ng t o t hi s cl ause, i t cur sor i l y

suggest s t hat Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony was a

der i vat i ve, not di r ect, use of i nf or mat i on f r om t he pr of f er

sessi on. Thi s i s si mpl y wr ong: t he gover nment made a di r ect , not

a der i vat i ve, use of t he pr oscr i bed i nf or mat i on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Pi el ago, 135 F. 3d 703, 710- 11 ( 11t h Ci r . 1998)

( expl ai ni ng t hat i nt r oduci ng i nf or mat i on obt ai ned f r om t he

def endant agai nst hi m i s a di r ect use of t hat i nf or mat i on) .

The shor t of i t i s t hat t he gover nment , havi ng agreed not

t o use i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by t he def endant at t he pr of f er

sessi on, r eneged on t hat pr omi se and used such i nf ormat i on at

t r i al . We wi l l not count enance t hat sl ei ght - of - hand. As we have

sai d, " t he government must t urn square corners when i t undert akes

a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on. " Fer r ar a v. Uni t ed St at es, 456 F. 3d 278,

280 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Our concl usi on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n admi t t i ng

Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony does not end our

odyssey. We must al so deci de whether t he admi ss i on of t hat

t est i mony shoul d be consi dered harml ess. 3

3 I t i s open t o l egi t i mat e quest i on whet her t he r ul e demandi ng"aut omat i c rever sal " based on "pol i cy i nt er est [ s] " mi ght appl y t ot hi s case. Pucket t v. Uni t ed St at es, 556 U. S. 129, 141 & n. 3( 2009) ( not i ng t he rul e as ar t i cul at ed by Sant obel l o v. New Yor k,404 U. S. 257 ( 1971) , but decl i ni ng t o addr ess i t s cont i nuedvi abi l i t y) . But t he par t i es have not r ai sed t hi s i ssue and, i n al levent s, t he err or was not har ml ess. Consequent l y, we need not

- 18-


19/23

Ther e ar e t wo st andar ds f or measur i ng harml ess er r or i n

a cr i mi nal case. The l ess gr uel i ng st andar d ( vi ewed f r om t he

gover nment ' s coi gn of vant age) al l ows a convi ct i on t o st and as l ong

as a r evi ewi ng cour t can say "wi t h f ai r assur ance, af t er ponder i ng

al l t hat happened wi t hout st r i ppi ng t he er r oneous act i on f r om t he

whol e, t hat t he j udgment was not subst ant i al l y swayed by t he

er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed St at es, 328 U. S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) .

Thi s l ess gruel i ng st andar d appl i es chi ef l y t o er r or s of a non-

const i t ut i onal di mensi on. The st r i ct er st andar d, whi ch appl i es t o

er r or s of const i t ut i onal di mensi on, r equi r es r ever sal unl ess t he

government pr oves "beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he er r or di d not

i nf l uence t he ver di ct . " I d. ( ci t i ng Chapman v. Cal i f or ni a, 386

U. S. 18, 23- 24 ( 1967) ) .

Labor i ng t o put t he geni e back i n t he bot t l e, t he

gover nment t akes t he posi t i on, wi t hout expl anat i on or el abor at i on,

t hat t he l ess gr uel i ng st andar d shoul d appl y t o t hi s er r or . We do

not agr ee.

Pr of f er agr eement s are sui gener i s, and t he cont r act - l aw

pr i nci pl es t hat cour t s use i n const r ui ng t hem ar e gl ossed wi t h a

concer n t hat t he def endant ' s consent t o appear at a pr of f er sessi on

shoul d not become a l ever t hat can be used t o upr oot hi s r i ght t o

f undament al f ai r ness under t he Due Process Cl ause. See Uni t ed

pr obe thi s poi nt more deepl y.

- 19-


20/23

St at es v. $87, 118. 00 i n U. S. Cur r ency, 95 F. 3d 511, 517 ( 7t h Ci r .

1996) . "Unl i ke t he nor mal commer ci al cont r act , " i t i s "due pr ocess

[ t hat ] r equi r es t hat t he gover nment adher e t o t he t er ms of any

. . . i mmuni t y agr eement i t makes. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l et i er ,

898 F. 2d 297, 302 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ; see Hi l l , 643 F. 3d at 874.

Because t he gover nment ' s adherence t o t he t erms of t he

pr of f er agr eement i s i nsur ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, i t s f ai l ur e

t o adher e i s per f or ce of const i t ut i onal di mensi on. I t f ol l ows

i nexor abl y t hat t he st r i ct er har ml ess- er r or st andar d appl i es t o

such a f ai l ur e. See, e. g. , Hi l l , 643 F. 3d at 877- 79. For pr esent

pur poses, t hi s means t hat t he government must show beyond any

r easonabl e doubt t hat t he gui l t y ver di ct was not i nf l uenced by t he

t r i al cour t ' s er r oneous admi ssi on of Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce

i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony.

The gover nment st r i ves t o mi ni mi ze t he f or ce of Of f i cer

Mazza' s t est i mony. I t assever at es t hat t he def endant ' s i dent i t y

was not i n quest i on because he admi t t ed t hat he was t he man i n

Wi l l i ams' s vehi cl e. Thus, i t s t hesi s r uns, Of f i cer Mazza' s

t est i mony coul d not have caused any harm. Thi s assever at i on,

however , i s l i t t l e mor e t han magi cal t hi nki ng; i t conf uses and

conf l at es t he i dent i t y of t he per son i n Wi l l i ams' s vehi cl e wi t h t he

i dent i t y of t he per son who spoke dur i ng t he ant ecedent t el ephone

cal l . We ar e di r ect ed t o no por t i on of t he r ecor d i n whi ch t he

def endant conceded t he l at t er poi nt .

- 20-


21/23

The gover nment has a f al l back posi t i on. I t boast s t hat

evi dence of t he def endant ' s gui l t was so over whel mi ng as t o render

t he t ai nt ed voi ce i dent i f i cat i on beni gn. 4 Thi s pr oposi t i on r el i es

heavi l y on Wi l l i ams' s t est i mony and t he vi deot aped r ecor di ng of

what t r anspi r ed i n Wi l l i ams' s vehi cl e. But pr obat i ve f or ce, l i ke

beaut y, of t en l i es i n t he eye of t he behol der . Her e, t he vi deot ape

showed no exchange of dr ugs, and Wi l l i ams especi al l y i n l i ght of

t he abor t ed bount y ar r angement hardl y coul d be r egarded as a

par agon of ver aci t y.

These i ssues ar e not mer el y t heor et i cal . The def endant

argued t hat Wi l l i ams set hi m up pr esumabl y t o earn t he bount y, and

t hat Wi l l i ams, not t he def endant , suppl i ed t he dr ugs. Whi l e t he

government ' s evi dence was adequat e t o sust ai n t he def endant ' s

convi ct i on agai nst a suf f i ci ency chal l enge, "mor e i s r equi r ed t o

show har ml essness beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Per ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

I n t he end, Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on

t est i mony bore on both f ur cul a of t he def endant ' s t wo- f ol d argument

f or acqui t t al . For one t hi ng, t he def endant cl ai med t hat i t was

Wi l l i ams who was r esponsi bl e f or t he dr ugs t hat wer e l at er

conf i scat ed by t he aut hor i t i es; yet Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce

4 Thi s r odomont ade seems suspi ci ousl y sel f - ser vi ng. I f t hegovernment ' s case was so st r ong, one mi ght l egi t i mat el y wonder whyt he gover nment wor ked so t i r el essl y t o over come t he di st r i ctcour t ' s doubt s about t he pr opr i et y of t he voi ce i dent i f i cat i ont est i mony and pave t he way f or i t s admi ssi on.

- 21-


22/23

i dent i f i cat i on pegged t he vehi cl e encount er as a pr e- ar r anged dr ug

deal and, t hus, under mi ned t he def endant ' s argument t hat t he

encount er was merel y a st aged show. For anot her t hi ng, t he

def endant vi gor ousl y at t acked Wi l l i ams' s credi bi l i t y; yet Of f i cer

Mazza' s t est i mony bol st er ed Wi l l i ams' s account of who had

par t i ci pat ed i n t he cruci al t el ephone cal l .

To ci nch mat t er s, we need l ook no f ur t her t han t he

pr osecut or ' s summat i on t o gauge the i mport ance of Of f i cer Mazza' s

voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony. The pr osecut or emphasi zed t hat t he

j uror s woul d "know t hat i t was t he def endant who got i n t he car and

who' s on t he tel ephone cal l bef orehand because of t he voi ce

i dent i f i cat i on made by Of f i cer Mazza. " The gover nment shoul d not

be al l owed t o have i t bot h ways. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Ti er ney, 760

F. 2d 382, 388 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( "Havi ng one' s cake and eat i ng i t ,

t oo, i s not i n f ashi on i n t hi s ci rcui t . " ) . I f Of f i cer Mazza' s

voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony was cri t i cal ( as t he pr osecut or t ol d

t he j ur y) , t he gover nment shoul d not now be heard t o di smi ss t hat

t est i mony as t r i vi a.

To sum up, we cannot say beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

t he gui l t y ver di ct i n t hi s case was uni nf l uenced by t he er r oneous

admi ssi on of Of f i cer Mazza' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony.

Ther ef or e, t he def endant ' s convi ct i on cannot st and.

- 22-


23/23

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dat ed above,

we vacate t he def endant ' s convi ct i on and r emand f or a new t r i al i n

whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t shal l excl ude any test i mony that i s a

di r ect use of "st at ement s made or other i nf or mat i on" gar ner ed f r om

t he def endant ' s pr of f er sessi on.

Vacated and Remanded.

- 23-

Documents

United States v. Melvin, 1st Cir. (2013)