Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-4248
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00034-FPS-JES-1)
Argued:
February 1, 2013
Decided:
I.
Because the government prevailed at trial, we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United
States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 341 n.14 (4th Cir. 2012).
On
approve
the
transaction.
refused
complete
the
sale.
to
Consequently,
However,
because
it
Cabelas
did
not
was
ineligible
to
purchase
the
guns,
Cabelas
Underwood
and
make
Hall
returned
to
Cabelas
on
February
27
to
the
purchase.
During the February 27 visit, Cabelas sales clerk Miranda
Cordery noticed that Hall stayed very close to Underwood.
Then,
after Underwood purchased the guns, Hall stated that they would
2
need
ammunition.
Cordery
then
discussed
different
types
of
the guns and ammunition in the trunk of Halls car and rode with
him to her apartment, where he dropped her off and drove away
with the guns and ammunition.
thereafter,
NICS
determined
that
Underwood
was
Accordingly
Joe
Price,
an
agent
of
the
Bureau
of
name for her boyfriend, but Price determined that Underwood had
given the guns to Hall and arranged for Hall to be arrested near
his home in Detroit, Michigan.
acquisition
of
firearm
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
He now appeals
II.
A.
We turn first to Halls contention that the district court
erred by denying his motion for acquittal, in which he argued
that
the
evidence
was
insufficient
to
establish
that
he
the evidence de novo, United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
(4th Cir.2005), and we must sustain the verdict if there is
substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
government, to support it.
17 (1978).
United States
A person
over
the
vehicle
in
which
it
is
. . .
concealed.
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 396 (4th Cir. 1999).
As noted, evidence at trial established that Underwood and Hall
purchased the guns together in Cabelas.
The
context
for
the
gun
purchase.
The
district
court
evidence
of
uncharged
conduct
is
not
considered
other
Further,
and
chose
the
type
of
ammunition
buy
was
Id.
to
Therefore, this
point,
Hall
argues
that
the
district
court
should
On
have
excluded the gun under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because its probative
value
was
substantially
prejudice.
We
discretion.
review
outweighed
by
evidentiary
the
danger
rulings
for
of
unfair
abuse
of
R.
Evid.
403
states
that
relevant
evidence
may
be
value
because
the
gun
was
not
recovered
in
his
to Hall, including the fact that its serial number matched the
6
serial
number
Cabelas.
on
one
gun
Underwood
purchased
for
Hall
at
In that motion,
Underwood
had
no
motive
to
lie
to
inculpate
him.
We review whether
2005).
United
Here,
the
evidence
or
improper
in
any
way.
Accordingly,
we
affirm the district courts decision to deny the motion for the
mistrial.
III.
The final two issues we address pertain to the governments
investigation and trial preparation.
additional
facts
and
procedural
We begin by recounting
history
pertinent
to
these
issues.
Prior to Halls trial, Price showed Cordery a black and
white photograph of Hall and asked her whether the photograph
showed the person who had accompanied Underwood into Cabelas on
the two occasions described above.
picture was too bad.
tell. 1
J.A. 280.
reports
(Dist.
Ct.
from
Doc.
prospective
18,
7,
witnesses
requesting
by
December
disclosure
of
6,
2011.
material
disclose the fact that Price had conducted the photo display or
that Cordery could not definitively identify Hall in it.
At
person
trial,
who
the
had
government
accompanied
asked
Underwood
Cordery
into
to
identify
Cabelas.
the
Halls
J.A. 261.
also
overruled
unaware
Cordery
of
identified
the
display,
Hall
as
Underwoods
objection,
companion.
Then,
and
on
and
her
inability
to
identify
Hall
in
it.
This
testimony was the first notice Hall or the court received of the
display.
Halls
that
counsel
conceded
Halls
identity
as
Underwoods
he
was
improperly
contends
tainted
that
by
suggestive.
Corderys
the
in-court
display,
Second,
he
which
identification
Hall
contends
contends
that
of
was
Corderys
error review is appropriate for the Brady issue, but they argue
for different standards of review on the objection to the in-
10
court identification.
must
standard,
we
or
be
variance
that
disregarded.
will
not
reverse
does
not
affect
Under
[this]
if
can
we
substantial
harmless-error
say,
with
fair
649 F.3d 197, 211 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kotteakos v. United
States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946)).
in-court
identification,
and
that
the
government
those
points
could
have
swayed
the
outcome
of
the
trial
because Hall does not contest that he was, in fact, the person
with Underwood at Cabelas.
The Supreme Court and this Court have stated that singlephotograph displays are unduly suggestive and should generally
be viewed with suspicion.
See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S.
98, 116 (1977) (explaining that identifications arising from
single-photograph displays may be viewed in general with
suspicion); United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 435, 441-42 (4th
Cir. 1997) (concluding that the use of a single photograph
display for pretrial identification was unduly suggestive).
11
concern
an
issue
that
is
not
in
disputeHalls
presence
at
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Halls conviction.
AFFIRMED
12