No. 99-863
In the Supreme Court of the United States
DON PRINCE, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
JAMES K. ROBINSON
Assistant Attorney General
JONATHAN L. MARCUS
Attorney
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could
not find one defendant guilty of conspiracy and the other defendant not
guilty, because the government had to prove "that the two defendants
entered into the unlawful agreement charged."
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error in admitting evidence
that petitioner aided his co-defendant when he was a fugitive.
3. Whether the district court committed reversible error in admitting evidence
that petitioner's co-defendant used a racial epithet.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error in letting the
jury consider an admission by petitioner's co-defendant that mentioned petitioner.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 99-863
DON PRINCE, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
OPINION BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1-15) is unpublished, but
the decision is noted at 187 F.3d 632 (Table).
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on July 20, 1999. A petition
for rehearing was denied on August 17, 1999. On November 8, 1999, the Chief
Justice extended the time for filing a petition for certiorari until December
15, 1999, and the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on November
18, 1999. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
STATEMENT
Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on two counts of conspiring in
a murder-for-hire scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1958(a), and one count
of travel in interstate commerce with intent to commit murder-for-hire,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1958(a). Petitioner was sentenced to 211 months'
imprisonment, to be followed by three years' supervised release, and was
fined $5000. The court of appeals affirmed. Gov't C.A. Br. 3; Pet. App.
1-15.
1. Petitioner's co-defendant brother, Bill Prince, and Charlie Dorn Smith
were convicted in 1992 for the contract murder of Bill Prince's foster father,
Billy Graham. Frederick "Peaches" Andrews testified for the State
about Bill Prince's and Smith's involvement in the murder. The South Carolina
Supreme Court reversed Smith's conviction, but affirmed Bill Prince's. After
Bill Prince's petition for rehearing was denied on August 26, 1994, he became
a fugitive until his capture a year later. Petitioner helped Prince remain
a fugitive by running his businesses, arranging doctor's appointments, and
finding places for him to stay. When petitioner's ex-girlfriend learned
of the scheme to evade the authorities, petitioner threatened her to keep
her quiet. Petitioner also worked with his brother's lawyers to procure
affidavits in support of a motion for new trial or post conviction relief.
Gov't C.A. Br. 4; Pet. App. 2-3. After Bill Prince was arrested in August
1995, petitioner frequently visited him in prison and continued to seek
affidavits in the hopes of obtaining a new trial for him. In particular,
petitioner prepared affidavits for Peaches Andrews and Charlie Dorn Smith,
but they did not sign them. Gov't C.A. Br. 4-5; Pet. App. 3.
In October 1995, Bill Prince, while in prison, began talking to another
inmate, FBI informant Scott Sherpinskas, about arranging for the contract
murders of Andrews and Smith. Bill Prince told Sherpinskas that petitioner
would travel from North Carolina to pay Sherpinskas's hit man in South Carolina,
and further said that petitioner would find someone else to commit the murders
if Sherpinskas could not find a hit man. Gov't C.A. Br. 5; Pet. App. 3-4.
Bill Prince asked another inmate, George Thomas Young, to commit the murders
after Young's release from prison on December 1, 1995. Bill Prince gave
Young maps to the houses of Smith's girlfriend and Andrews, and told Young
that petitioner would assist Young in locating the houses and would pay
him for the murders. Gov't C.A. Br. 5-6; Pet. App. 4.
After traveling from North to South Carolina, petitioner met with Young
on December 1, 1995, and showed him the residences of Smith's girlfriend
and of Andrews. Petitioner paid Young approximately $2000 and gave him telephone
charge cards to use for calling petitioner. During the next week, Young
called petitioner several times, and petitioner called Young on at least
one occasion. Petitioner and Young met again on December 7, 1995, to discuss
the murder plots. Gov't C.A. Br. 6; Pet. App. 4-5.
On December 8, 1995, Sherpinskas pretended that his hit man had murdered
Andrews, showing Bill Prince a picture allegedly depicting Andrews' dead
body. Bill Prince agreed to pay for Andrews' murder and to make a down payment
for Smith's murder, assuring Sherpinskas that petitioner would meet the
hit man and make the payments. The men agreed that petitioner would use
the code word "Turbeville" so the hit man would recognize him.
Gov't C.A. Br. 6-7; Pet. App. 5.
On December 14, 1995, petitioner visited his brother in prison. After the
meeting, petitioner traveled to a remote rest area located off Interstate
20. When petitioner approached the hit man, who was an undercover agent,
at the prearranged location, he asked, "You don't know how to get to
Turbeville, do you?" The men discussed the pay-off, and petitioner
told the agent to get rid of the envelopes that contained the $5000. The
agent asked petitioner whether he had seen the newspaper story reporting
the disappearance of Andrews, and petitioner responded that he had been
called about the article that morning. The agent asked whether he should
"do Smith," and petitioner told him to "hold on it"
because "things are buzzing about [Andrews]." The men discussed
a mix-up regarding the payments on the Smith deal, and the agent asked whether
petitioner would talk to his brother to clear it up. Petitioner responded
that he did not like to talk about these issues on the telephone because
"my lines were bugged [when Bill was on the run] * * * and they still
may be." Gov't C.A. Br. 7; Pet. App. 5.
After paying the agent, petitioner was arrested. He remarked in a disgusted
voice, "The things you would do for your brother." The government
later recovered several incriminating letters and documents in petitioner's
home, office, boat, and car. Gov't C.A. Br. 7-8; Pet. App. 5-6.
2. Before trial, petitioner moved to exclude certain pieces of evidence,
including evidence that he assisted his brother while he was a fugitive.
The district court admitted the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b). C.A. App. 150-151. During trial, petitioner also objected to the
introduction of a recorded conversation between Bill Prince and Sherpinkas
in which Bill Prince used the word "niggers." Id. at 989-991.
The district court overruled the objection, id. at 996-997, but gave the
jury the following cautionary instruction:
[S]ome of the language that you hear on this tape may be offensive to you.
You must not be biased or prejudiced in this case because of the language
someone might use when they do not know they are being taped. And I know
you can't put a line down your mind, but you really need to be conscientious
about not being influenced by the form of the words used.
Id. at 1041.
Petitioner also objected to the introduction of a letter from Bill Prince
to his (Bill's) wife while he was in prison. Bill Prince stated in the letter
that "everything is my fault. I will never be able to forgive myself
for the problems that I have caused everybody. But if it would be any consolation,
I would have done the same for Don." C.A. App. 1148. The district court
ruled that the letter was admissible only against Bill Prince, but the court
denied petitioner's motion to sever, ruling that a limiting instruction
would be sufficient. Id. at 1140-1143.
During deliberations, the jury submitted the following question to the court:
"In relation to Counts One and Two regarding the alleged conspiracy,
can we render a guilty verdict for one defendant and/or a not guilty verdict
for the other defendant?" C.A. App. 1741. In response, the district
court instructed the jury as follows:
I would say the answer to that question is no. The reason for that answer
is as follows: You will recall I told you in my jury instructions, a conspiracy
is a kind of criminal partnership[,] a combination or a[n] agreement of
two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose.
I also told you that of the four elements necessary for the government to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a conspiracy, the first of
those elements is that the two defendants entered into the unlawful agreement
charged in the indictment between on or about October First, 1995, and December
14th, 1995. Thus, because the essence of an agreement is a situation involv[ing]
two people, the answer to the question you have asked me is no.
Id. at 1742.
3. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1-15. The court of appeals agreed
with petitioner that the district court should have redacted Bill Prince's
use of the word "niggers" in the recorded conversation between
Bill Prince and Sherpinskas. Id. at 6. The court of appeals held that the
error was harmless, however, because the district court gave a "careful
jury instruction" that "was sufficient to eliminate the relatively
modest prejudicial effect that this isolated epithet might otherwise have
had on the jury." Id. at 6-7.
The court of appeals further held that the district court's refusal to grant
a severance in connection with Bill Prince's letter to his wife did not
violate the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), that bars
the admission of a confession of a non-testifying co-defendant that is "powerfully
incriminating" of the defendant. Pet. App. 7-9. The court of appeals
observed that petitioner did not request the district court to redact the
one sentence of the letter that referred to petitioner-"But if it would
be any consolation, I would have done the same for Don." Id. at 7.
The court of appeals also explained that the vague language of the letter
was open to different interpretations, including one that was consistent
"with [petitioner]'s defense that he extensively assisted his brother
but never participated in any murder-for-hire plot." Id. at 9. As such,
the court of appeals held that the letter "simply does not powerfully
incriminate [petitioner]." Ibid.
The court of appeals further ruled that the district court erred in admitting
Rule 404(b) evidence that petitioner assisted his brother when he was a
fugitive, reasoning that such evidence "was not part of the same criminal
episode as the conspiracy to murder the witnesses." Pet. App. 11. The
court of appeals stated, however, that it had "no difficulty finding"
the error harmless, "[i]n light of the voluminous properly admitted
evidence * * * against [petitioner]." Id. at 12.
The court of appeals did not specifically address petitioner's challenge
to the district court's jury instruction in which the court told the jury
that it could not find one defendant guilty of conspiracy but not the other.
But the court of appeals stated that it had "carefully reviewed [petitioner's]
other arguments," and found them "all meritless." Pet. App.
13.
ARGUMENT
1. Petitioner argues (Pet. 6-8) that the district court erred in instructing
the jury that it could not find one defendant guilty of conspiracy and the
other defendant not guilty. That is incorrect. The indictment in this case
charged that petitioner and his brother conspired to commit murder-for-hire.
C.A. App. 16-17.1 Similarly, the government's theory at trial was that petitioner
and his brother-and no one else-conspired to commit the murder-for-hire
scheme. The jury likewise was instructed that the government had to prove
an unlawful agreement between petitioner and his brother, "the two
defendants." See Transcript of Jury instructions, at 191-196. Under
those circumstances, the trial court properly instructed the jury that it
could not convict one defendant of conspiracy and acquit the other. See
United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70, 86 (1951) (Black, J., concurring)
("[O]ne person obviously cannot conspire with himself."); United
States v. Davis, 183 F.3d 231, 244 (3d Cir. 1999) ("[A] person cannot
conspire with himself[.]"); United States v. Campbell, 64 F.3d 967,
978 (5th Cir. 1995) ("[A] single defendant cannot conspire with himself.").
Petitioner further errs in relying (Pet. 7-8) on United States v. Powell,
469 U.S. 57, 64-69 (1984), which rejected the notion that a rationally irreconcilable
verdict entitles a criminal defendant to reversal of his conviction. Nothing
in that decision suggests that a criminal defendant is entitled to an instruction
expressly authorizing the jury to render inconsistent verdicts. Although
the Court in Powell recognized the unreviewable power juries have to nullify
the law and evidence, the Court also described that power as one "which
[the jury has] no right to exercise." Id. at 66 (quoting Dunn v. United
States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932)); see also United States v. Thomas, 116
F.3d 606, 616 n.9 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[C]riminal defendants have no right
to a jury instruction alerting jurors to this power to act in contravention
of their duty.").2 Accordingly, Powell provides no support for petitioner's
contention that he was entitled to have the jury instructed that it could
reach inconsistent verdicts.
2. Petitioner argues (Pet. 8-10) that the district court's admission of
evidence that petitioner helped his brother remain a fugitive was reversible
error. Even assuming that the evidence was inadmissible,3 the court of appeals
properly held that any such error was harmless "[i]n light of the voluminous
properly admitted evidence" against petitioner. Pet. App. 12. That
fact- bound conclusion does not merit further review. See United States
v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 510 (1983) (noting that this Court undertakes
harmless error review "sparingly").
3. Petitioner also challenges (Pet. 10-11) the court of appeals' harmless
error finding with respect to the district court's failure to redact the
word "niggers" from the recorded statement of Bill Prince. The
court of appeals concluded, however, that jurors are presumed to follow
the trial court's instructions, Pet. App. 7, and the court's "careful
jury instruction," id. at 6, directing the jury not to be swayed by
an emotional reaction to the word "was sufficient to eliminate [its]
relatively modest prejudicial effect." Id. at 7. That conclusion was
correct and too fact-bound to warrant this Court's review.
4. Finally, petitioner contends (Pet. 11-14) that the admission of a letter
from Bill Prince to his (Bill's) wife violated his Confrontation Clause
rights because it incriminated him, and the district court refused to grant
him a severance. That claim also lacks merit.
The court of appeals correctly upheld the district court's refusal to sever
petitioner's case, because the letter did not "powerfully incriminate[]"
petitioner and this did not trigger the rule in Bruton v. United States,
391 U.S. 123 (1968). Pet. App. 8. In Bruton, the Court held that the admission
at a joint trial of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that powerfully
incriminated the defendant violated the Confrontation Clause. The Court
explained that, even if the jury receives limiting instructions to disregard
the co-defendant's confessions when considering the defendant's case, they
are not adequate to protect against misuse of the co-defendant's confession.
See Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 190 (1998).
That analysis does not apply here. The statements in the letter did not
refer specifically to any crimes; instead, Bill Prince commented that "everything"
was his fault; that he would not be able to forgive himself for the "problems"
he caused; and that he would have "done the same" for petitioner.
Similarly, while the letter mentioned petitioner by name, it did not identify
anything petitioner had done. As such, the statement did not directly incriminate
petitioner; rather it would incriminate him only if the jury drew inferences
from other evidence adduced at trial. Pet. App. 9; see also United States
v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 387-388 (5th Cir. 1999) (statement mentioning defendant
by name, but which was "harmful to defense only if jury made several
inferential jumps," did not powerfully incriminate defendant such that
there was risk jurors would disobey limiting instructions.), cert. denied,
120 S. Ct. 1180 (2000); cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987)
("the judge's instruction may well be successful in dissuading the
jury from entering onto the path of inference in the first place.").
Petitioner moreover rejected a limiting instruction, Pet. App. 8, see Fed.
R. Evid. 105, and never asked the district court to redact the one sentence
in the letter that mentioned him, Pet. App. 8; cf. Richardson, 481 U.S.
at 209.
Moreover, as the court of appeals explained, even if the jury sought to
infer the letter's meaning by reference to the evidence presented, it is
not clear that the jury would have assigned the incriminating meaning petitioner
suggests. Indeed, "[t]he statement in Bill's letter is not in any way
inconsistent with [petitioner's] defense that he extensively assisted his
brother but never participated in any murder-for-hire plot." Pet. App.
9. As such, it was not "powerfully incriminat[ing]." Ibid. And,
in any event, its admission at trial would be, at most, harmless error.
See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 (1969).
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
JAMES K. ROBINSON
Assistant Attorney General
JONATHAN L. MARCUS
Attorney
MARCH 2000
1 The indictment therefore did not allege, as some indictments do, that
the defendants conspired "with others known and unknown to the grand
jury."
2 The Court in Powell also explained that criminal defendants are protected
from any prejudicial "jury irrationality" by "sufficiency-of-the-evidence
review." 469 U.S. at 67. Here, petitioner does not challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his conviction on two counts of conspiracy. Moreover,
petitioner's suggestion (Pet. 8) that the jury may have convicted him of
consiracy solely to support the conspiracy conviction of his brother is
belied by the jury's conviction of petitioner on the subsantive count of
murder-for-hire.
3 The evidence of petitioner's assistance to his brother while he was a
fugitive was, in fact, highly probative in illustrating the nature of the
relationship the conspirators enjoyed before hatching the murder-for-hire
plot. The evidence not only showed the relationship of trust between petitioner
and his brother and how petitioner's sense of loyalty motivated his actions,
but it also illustrated the substantial level of involvement petitioner
had in fighting his brother's murder conviction. When the brothers failed
to obtain Bill Prince's release from prison, they decided to take revenge
on the men who they believed were responsible for Bill Prince's predicament.
The evidence therefore was "inextricably intertwined" with the
conspiracies charged and was necessary to tell the complete story. See United
States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87-88 (4th Cir. 1996). And the probative value
of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Petitioner's assistance to his brother when he was a fugitive helped put
into context his subsequent participation in the murder plots, and a reasonable
jury would not conclude from that evidence alone that petitioner would participate
in a murder-for-hire scheme.