United States v. Bovie ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 29 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-1326
v. (D.C. No. 95-CR-87)
(D. Colo.)
KIRK BOVIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This case arises out of a federal investigation into a multi-kilogram cocaine
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
distribution organization. In early 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) identified several individuals as persons selling large quantities of cocaine
in the Denver area.
In February 1995, the district court authorized a wiretap on three phone
numbers believed to be used by one of the primary targets of this drug
organization. The wiretap revealed a number of telephone conversations
involving Mr. Kirk Bovie and implicating him in the conspiracy.
On March 7, 1995, the grand jury returned a forty-four count indictment
against multiple persons. Mr. Bovie was named in Counts One and Two. Count
One charged Mr. Bovie with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine from January 1,
1992 through March 3, 1995, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846 (1994), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Count Two charged him
with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of approximately two
kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine
from February 24, 1995 through March 1, 1995, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
-2-
On April 7, 1995, the grand jury returned the First Superseding Indictment,
which merely added two alleged coconspirators to Count One. On May 5, 1995, a
Second Superseding Indictment added another alleged coconspirator to Count
One. The remaining forty-three counts were unchanged from the original
indictment.
On October 16, 1995, the district court denied Mr. Bovie's Motion to
Suppress Intercepted Wire Communications. 1 United States v. Sorapuru, 902 F.
Supp. 1322, 1330 (D. Colo. 1995) (order denying motion to suppress). The
district court determined the wiretap application and the accompanying affidavit
contained the information required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1). Id. at 1326, 1330.
Therefore, the district court concluded the wiretap order complied with the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3) and was facially sufficient. Id.On January 25, 1996, the grand jury returned a Third Superseding
Indictment. 2 This indictment contained only twelve counts and named Mr. Bovie
1
On September 21, 1995, Mr. Bovie joined his co-defendants' motions to
suppress.
2
This indictment was returned two business days before trial. However,
trial did not commence until April 1, 1996.
-3-
in all twelve. In Count One, the conspiracy dates were changed to February 1,
1994 through March 3, 1995, and only two alleged co-conspirators were named
along with Mr. Bovie. Counts Two through Ten charged Mr. Bovie with
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine on various dates between March 1994
and March 1995, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii) and
(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counts Eleven and Twelve charged Mr. Bovie with
knowingly and intentionally conducting and attempting to conduct a financial
transaction by use of Western Union money transfers knowing and intending the
financial transaction would promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity
on June 19, 1994 through June 21, 1994, and June 26, 1994, respectively, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and 2. Mr. Bovie moved to dismiss the
Third Superseding Indictment on the grounds of procedural unfairness, extreme
prejudice, vindictiveness, and violation of his right to due process. The district
court denied his motion after a hearing on February 1, 1996.
In April 1996, Mr. Bovie was tried on the charges in the Third Superseding
Indictment. On April 12, 1996, the jury found him guilty on Counts One, Three,
Four, Five, Six, Eight, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve, and not guilty on Counts Two,
Seven and Nine. On July 11, 1996, the district court sentenced Mr. Bovie to 156
-4-
months imprisonment on each count of conviction to be served concurrently.
On appeal, Mr. Bovie challenges the district court's rulings regarding his
motion to suppress the wiretap evidence, his motion to dismiss the Third
Superseding Indictment, and the district court's jury instructions. Mr. Bovie
contends: the district court erroneously failed to suppress the evidence obtained
from the wiretap because the government failed to meet the mandatory
requirement of necessity under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) (1994); the Third
Superseding Indictment was the result of prosecutorial vindictiveness in violation
of his constitutional right to due process; and the jury instructions violated his
constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the requirement the
government establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I. Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence
Mr. Bovie contends the FBI's failure to establish the wiretap's "necessity"
as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) requires the suppression of all the
evidence obtained from the wiretap. Mr. Bovie argues there was no necessity to
resort to a wiretap because the FBI had the ability to infiltrate the alleged
conspiracy by means of a confidential informant, and because the FBI had met
with "nothing but success" with its use of traditional investigative methods.
-5-
"On appeal from a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a
wiretap, we accept the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous,
review questions of law de novo, and view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party." United States v. Castillo-Garcia, ___ F.3d
___, ___, 1997 WL 358649, *5 (10th Cir. 1997). "[W]hether the government
demonstrated sufficient 'necessity' under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) (1994) to support
the issuance of a wiretapping order is a question of law which we review de
novo." Id. (footnote omitted). However, "a wiretap authorization order is
presumed proper, and a defendant carries the burden of overcoming this
presumption." United States v. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1995).
Among other provisions, the government must make a full and complete
showing that a wiretap is necessary. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). Under the
"necessity requirement," an application for a wiretap authorization must contain
"a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures
have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to
succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." Quintana, 70 F.3d at 1169 (internal
quotation marks omitted). In addition, the judge authorizing the wiretap must
find that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or
reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 18
-6-
U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c).
In Castillo-Garcia, we held there are four categories of normal
investigative procedures the government must address fully in its application:
"(1) standard visual and aural surveillance; (2) questioning and interrogation of
witnesses or participants (including the use of grand juries and the grant of
immunity if necessary); (3) use of search warrants; and (4) infiltration of
conspiratorial groups by undercover agents or informants." Castillo-Garcia, 1997
___ F.3d at ___, WL 358649, at *7. In addition, the government must address the
use of pen registers or trap and trace devices. Id. In its application, the
government must explain fully and with particularity what investigative
techniques have been tried against the target of the wiretap and why any untried
techniques would be either unsuccessful or too dangerous. Id. "However, the
government need not exhaust or explain its failure to exhaust every conceivable
normal type investigative procedure before resorting to wiretapping." Id. at 8.
Nor is the government's failure to explicitly explain its failure to utilize one or
more specified categories of normal investigative techniques fatal to the wiretap
application "if it is clear, under the government's recitation of the facts of the
case, that requiring the government to attempt the unexhausted and unexplained
normal investigative techniques would be unreasonable." Id.
-7-
With these guidelines in mind and after reviewing the government's
application for the wiretap and FBI Special Agent Todd C. Wilcox's affidavit in
support thereof, we hold the government's application and the district court's
authorization satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) and (3)(c),
respectively. Special Agent Wilcox's affidavit explains in detail why normal
investigative techniques, which had been attempted, had failed to reveal the full
scope of this drug organization or failed to develop sufficient evidence against the
key participants such tat a wiretap was necessary.
First, as the government explained, physical surveillance of the primary
targets failed to reveal the scope of the drug organization. In fact, the primary
targets of the investigation closed their front business, Hardbodies Paint and Body
Shop, because they feared the police were watching them; one of the primary
targets changed two of his home phone numbers and disconnected his pager
shortly after closing their front business; and the government could not make
direct contact with the primary targets of the investigation because the primary
targets insulated themselves from the actual distribution and acquisition of the
cocaine.
Second, the wiretap application revealed the government’s questioning and
-8-
interviewing of participants-turned-informants was of limited use. The
participant-turned-informant witnesses available to the government lacked
significant information regarding the scope of the conspiracy. Many of these
witnesses were already in custody or were arrested on drug charges themselves.
In addition, the application discussed the possibility of expanding the limited
grand jury investigation already underway. An Assistant United States Attorney
concluded subpoenaing of persons believed to be involved in the conspiracy
would not be completely successful because the subjects of the investigation
would most likely invoke the Fifth Amendment, it would be unwise to grant
immunity to these subjects because it may preclude prosecution of the most
culpable persons, and it would alert other conspirators of the investigation, which
would jeopardize the on-going investigation.
Third, the government explained search warrants were of limited value in
this case since the primary targets of the investigation "have insulated themselves
in their residences in such a way that rarely would a person get into a position to
develop information upon which probable cause for a search warrant could be
developed." Additionally, it was unlikely a successful search and possible drug
seizure would be useful against persons not present at the time of the search or
that information would be obtained that would reveal the scope of the drug
-9-
dealing activities.
Fourth, the confidential sources used in this operation were of limited use
since none were able to make a drug purchase from one of the primary targets or
to introduce undercover officers for the purpose of making a drug purchase. In
addition, the confidential sources reasonably feared reprisal for their direct
testimony against any of the primary targets. This fear stemmed from the murder
of a confidential informant in another investigation who was supposed to testify
against one of the primary targets of this investigation. Even if the confidential
sources would testify, the government points out their testimony would be of
limited value based on their limited roles in the organization.
Fifth, the government disclosed its extensive use of pen registers, clone
pagers, trap and trace, and toll information. However, this information was of
limited use since it could not reveal the identities of the parties or the subject
matter of the calls. In this case, the true identities of the participants was
particularly difficult to ascertain because the suspects frequently used aliases or
other people as fronts when obtaining pagers and phones.
We believe the government's explanations in its application comprise "a
-10-
full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures
have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to
succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(c)(1).
Additionally, it is clear from the application that requiring the government to
further attempt normal investigative techniques would not be reasonable under
these circumstances. Thus, Mr. Bovie fails to overcome the presumption the
order is proper. The district court did not err in finding the government had
satisfied the "necessity requirement" with regard to the wiretap at issue. See
Sorapuru, 902 F. Supp. at 1328-29. 3
II. Third Superseding Indictment
Mr. Bovie contends the procedural nature of this case, wherein the
government obtained the Third Superseding Indictment over ten months after the
original indictment and only two business days before his scheduled trial,
demonstrates a realistic likelihood of vindictive prosecution in violation of his
constitutional right to due process. 4 Mr. Bovie argues the Third Superseding
3
For the first time on appeal, the government asserts the "good faith"
exception to the exclusionary rule applies. However, as a general rule, this court
will not consider an issue on appeal that was not raised below. Walker v. Mather
(In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992).
4
At the end of his argument, Mr. Bovie adds the contention the procedural
nature of this case establishes prosecutorial "vindictiveness in fact." To the
-11-
Indictment is the product of prosecutorial vindictiveness because he rejected the
government's offer and exercised his constitutional right to trial. In addition, Mr.
Bovie asserts he was unfairly prejudiced by the increase in the number of charges
from the Second Superseding Indictment to the Third Superseding Indictment on
the eve of trial.
"Vindictive prosecution claims often turn on the facts, and we review a
district court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard; our review
of the legal principles which guide the district court is de novo." United States v.
Raymer, 941 F.2d 1031, 1039 (10th Cir. 1991) (footnote omitted).
In order to maintain a claim for prosecutorial vindictiveness, a defendant
has the burden of proof and must establish either (1) actual vindictiveness or (2) a
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness that will give rise to a presumption of
vindictiveness. Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040; United States v. Wall, 37 F.3d 1443,
extent this is an allegation of "actual vindictiveness," see discussion supra, we
decline to address it as Mr. Bovie failed to raise this in the district court and
failed to support the statement with any argument or analysis. See Murrell v.
Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (perfunctory complaints that fail
to frame and develop an issue are insufficient to invoke appellate review);
Walker, 959 F.2d at 896 (as a general rule, we will not consider on appeal an
issue not raised in the district court).
-12-
1447 (10th Cir. 1994). "If the defendant successfully bears that burden, the
prosecution must 'justify its decision with legitimate, articulate, objective reasons'
for its actions." Wall, 37 F.3d at 1447 (quoting Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040).
However, if the defendant does not meet that burden, the district court need not
reach the issue of the government's justification. Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040.
"While a prosecutor may penalize a defendant for violating the law, a
prosecutor may not punish a defendant for 'exercising a protected statutory or
constitutional right.'" United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1262 (10th Cir.
1997) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982)), petition for
cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. ____ (U.S. Jun. 7, 1997) (No. 96-9286). However, a
prosecutor's offer to a defendant to plead guilty or face more serious charges does
not present a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" provided, of course, the
prosecutor has probable cause on the more serious charges and the defendant is
free to accept or reject the offer. Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040 (citing Bordenkircher
v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363-64 (1978)). The critical question is whether Mr.
Bovie has shown that all of the circumstances, when taken together, support a
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness and therefore give rise to the presumption.
United States v. Doran, 882 F.2d 1511, 1521 (10th Cir. 1989).
-13-
After careful review of the district court's decision and the circumstances
surrounding the Third Superseding Indictment, we hold Mr. Bovie fails to show a
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. Mr. Bovie's arguments for prosecutorial
vindictiveness rely solely on the procedural nature of the case and the differences
between the Second and Third Superseding Indictments. In this case, the district
court found Mr. Bovie knew his failure to accept a plea agreement would result in
the prosecution obtaining a third superseding indictment to narrowly tailor the
charges against him as the sole remaining defendant. In a colloquy with Mr.
Bovie's counsel, the court stated, "Your client made a choice. Could have pled
guilty to the second superseding indictment. He didn't elect to do so. They
warned him if he did -- if he didn't -- they were going to reindict." Mr. Bovie's
counsel responded and admitted, "There was a warning that there would be a third
superseding indictment, absolutely." In closing, the district court recognized that
"[w]hile confronting a defendant with a risk of more severe punishment clearly
may have a discouraging effect on the defendant's choice of the trial rights, the
imposition of these choices is inevitable and permissible." We agree with the
district court. Mr. Bovie elected to proceed to trial rather than negotiate a
disposition of this case; therefore, he must endure the consequences of his
decision.
-14-
Additionally, Mr. Bovie's unfair prejudice argument is unpersuasive. "In
the absence of procedural unfairness to the defendant, the government may
increase charges or make them more precise based upon new information or
further evaluation." Raymer, 941 F.3d 1042. Since Mr. Bovie was the sole
remaining defendant in this case, the government obtained the Third Superseding
Indictment, which made the charges more precise and more narrowly tailored to
Mr. Bovie's conduct. In addition, the district court continued Mr. Bovie's trial
date two and one-half months. 5 Therefore, we hold Mr. Bovie was not unfairly
prejudiced by the government's obtaining the Third Superseding Indictment and,
in any event, the continuance cured any prejudice he may have incurred.
III. Jury Instructions
Mr. Bovie contends the jury instructions violated his right to the
presumption of innocence and his right to require the government to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Bovie argues Jury Instruction No. 1
improperly reduced the government's burden of proof by instructing the jury they
could make essential factual determinations based merely on probabilities rather
than beyond a reasonable doubt and misstated the presumption of innocence by
5
Due to the court's schedule, the trial date was moved to April 1, 1996 on
February 29, 1996 without objection by Mr. Bovie.
-15-
instructing the jury to presume the defendant "not guilty" rather than "innocent."
Jury Instruction No. 1 is a lengthy general instruction outlining the duties
and responsibilities of the jurors. In pertinent part, Jury Instruction No. 1
provides:
Any finding of fact you make must be based on probabilities,
not possibilities. It may not be based on surmise, speculation, or
conjecture. You must not be influenced by sympathy or by prejudice
for or against any party in this case. Keep constantly in mind that it
would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon
anything other than the evidence in the case and the instructions of
the Court.
....
The Defendant, Kirk Bovie, has pleaded "not guilty" to this
indictment and, therefore, denied that he is guilty of the charges.
You must presume a defendant in a criminal case to be not
guilty of the crimes charged. Thus a defendant, although accused of
a crime in the indictment, begins the trial with a "clean slate" -- with
no evidence against him or her.
....
It is sufficient if the government has proven one or more of the
alternative definitions of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The
government does not have to prove more than one alternative theory
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable
doubt on one theory is enough. But in order for you to return a guilty
verdict, all twelve of you must agree that the same alternative theory
has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant,
-16-
for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the
burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
A defendant is not even obligated to produce any evidence by cross-
examining the witnesses for the government. The presumption of
innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a defendant.
It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all
possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable
doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense -- the kind of
doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most
important of his or her own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that a
reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.
Unless the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the Defendant has committed each and every element of the offense
charged, you must find the Defendant not guilty of the offense. If a
juror views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either
of two conclusions -- one of not guilty, the other of guilty -- the juror
must, of course, adopt the conclusion of not guilty.
We review challenges to a specific jury instruction objected to at trial de
novo. United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 1421, 1424 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513
U.S. 878 (1994); United States v. Mullins, 4 F.3d 898, 900 (10th Cir. 1993). We
must determine whether the jury, considering the instructions as a whole, was
misled and will disturb the judgment only where we have substantial doubt as to
whether the jury was fairly guided. Smith, 13 F.3d at 1424; Mullins, 4 F.3d at
900. Specifically, we must determine whether the jury instructions, taken as a
whole, adequately convey the concept of reasonable doubt; we must examine
whether a reasonable likelihood exists the jury understood the instructions to
-17-
allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the beyond a reasonable
doubt standard. United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir.), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 443 (1996).
Considering Jury Instruction No. 1 in its entirety, we hold the jury was not
improperly instructed on the government's burden of proof of beyond a reasonable
doubt, nor misled as to the presumption of innocence. In Miller, we noted the
Supreme Court has "'repeatedly approved' the definition of a reasonable doubt as
'a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act.'" Miller, 84 F.3d
at 1252 (quoting Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994)). This is the exact
language used in Jury Instruction No. 1 to explain the burden of proof to the jury.
In addition, Jury Instruction No. 1 reminds the jury it must find Mr. Bovie guilty
of each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, or it must find
him not guilty. The language complained of by Mr. Bovie describes the degree of
certainty with which the jury must determine the underlying factual issues, not the
degree of certainty needed to find him guilty. The inclusion of the "probabilities,
not possibilities" language in no way lessened the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard, especially in view of the fact the instruction specifically caution the jury
not "to single out one instruction alone," but to "consider the instructions as a
whole."
-18-
Mr. Bovie's argument regarding the presumption of innocence is equally
without merit. Jury Instruction No. 1 explained to the jury, "You must presume a
defendant in a criminal case to be not guilty of the crimes charged. Thus a
defendant, although accused of a crime in the indictment , begins the trial with a
"clean slate" -- with no evidence against him or her." The court also instructed
the jury "[t]he presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a
defendant." In light of the instruction as a whole, we hold the jury was not misled
by these instructions on the presumption of innocence. As a practical matter, in
the context of this jury instruction "not guilty" and "innocence" are equivalent.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-19-