Published on:

An unredacted indictment mistakenly sent to the jury showing the Defendant’s inadmissible prior convictions was harmless error according to the Eleventh Circuit.

In U.S. v. Dortch the Defendant was charged in federal court in Florida with the federal crimes of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and carrying and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense after a search warrant executed at the defendant’s house turned up traces of drugs and tools related to drug distribution (scales and boxes of sandwiches bags). The police found the two firearms in the bedroom and other locations of the house. The federal charges also included the possession of two specific firearms by a convicted felon. The indictment alleged eight of the defendant’s prior convictions, however the government was only allowed to introduce at trial 3 priors because 5 were too old or prejudicial.

The trial court sent a copy of the indictment to the jury unaware it sent the unredacted copy containing reference to the 5 prior inadmissible convictions. One of those was a 1987 conviction for selling marijuana that was identical to one of the charged offenses.

The Eleventh Circuit found that giving the jury the unredacted indictment was harmless error. The government presented an overwhelming case that the defendant possessed a firearm as a convicted felon. The government also presented a strong case that he possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute.

The Eleventh Circuit found no constructive amendment of an indictment charging possession of a specific firearm where the jury instruction described a generic firearm.

The jury instructions did not mention the specific kind of firearm possessed, but rather it instructed that he was charged with possession of a generic firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The defendant claimed the district court erred by permitting a constructive amendment to the indictment which alleged possession of two specific firearms. At trial the government offered evidence of four guns. The jury was instructed it could convict if it found the defendant possessed “a firearm.”

Reviewing for plain error, the Eleventh Circuit found no constructive amendment. There were no Supreme Court cases nor was there any precedent in the Eleventh Circuit supporting the defendant’s argument that a court constructively amends an indictment that alleges possession of a particular firearm by instructing the jury that it may convict for possession of any firearm. While there is some split in the circuits, the Eleventh Circuit ruled with the majority of the circuits (8th, 10th, and 6th ) that there is no constructive amendment under these circumstances.

Evidence of a prior acquittal is inadmissible evidence at trial

The defendant wanted to introduce evidence that he was acquitted in state court of the charges relating to a drug transaction admitted in evidence through an informant who testified in the federal trial. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the defendant could not introduce evidence of his acquittal of the state charges in connection relating to the marijuana transaction. Judgments of acquittal are hearsay and unlike judgments of conviction which may be admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence for some purposes, judgment of acquittal are not covered by an exception to the rule against the admission of hearsay.

In case you missed it, please read my previous post
Delay in filing an indictment caused by plea negotiations is…, August 16, 2012