United States v. Richardson

In May 2007, a confidential informant contacted the Narcotics Division of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office to offer information about local narcotics trafficking. The informant reported that an individual, later identified as Appellant Almond Richardson, was selling narcotics out of his apartment as well as his business, a store called Just 4 U Fashion. A federal grand jury would later indict Richardson on charges of distribution of crack cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, manufacture of marijuana, possession of marijuana, distribution of ecstasy, and possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute. Four days before the scheduled trial date, Richardson moved to represent himself. The district court denied Richardson’s motion to proceed pro se, and the case proceeded to trial with Richardson represented by retained counsel Steven Moore. All of the Government’s witnesses, including the informant, were cross-examined by Moore. Moore specifically questioned the informant about his motives for cooperating with the police, his past arrests and convictions for narcotics-related and violent offenses, and his relationship with Richardson. The jury convicted Richardson of five of the seven charges. Richardson appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred by denying: (1) his motions to suppress; (2) his motion for a Franks hearing to present evidence contesting the veracity of the statements in the search-warrant affidavit; and (3) his motion to proceed pro se. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found no error in the district court’s rulings on the motions to suppress and the motion for a Franks hearing, but it concluded that the district court had violated Richardson’s Sixth Amendment right of self-representation. Accordingly, the panel vacated Richardson’s conviction and sentence and remanded for further proceedings, noting that its disposition of all motions presented to the district court before Richardson invoked his right of self-representation would be controlling on remand. The issue this case presented on appeal centered on whether the trial testimony of the informant, elicited in contravention of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of self-representation, constitutionally may be admitted in the defendant’s retrial when the witness becomes unavailable between the first and second trials. The Fifth Circuit concluded that, if the defendant had an adequate opportunity for cross-examination at the first trial, then the witness’s prior testimony may be introduced in the second trial without offending the Confrontation Clause, at least when the defendant has not claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the first trial. Furthermore, the Court found the appellant’s remaining claims of error to be without merit. View "United States v. Richardson" on Justia Law