Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Keith Newman's convictions for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine. The court rejected claims involving Jencks Act and Brady/Giglio disclosures, admission of prior convictions to impeach hearsay statements, and exclusion of expert psychiatric testimony concerning susceptibility to entrapment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government violated the Jencks Act by failing to produce a DEA report based on an interview with rebuttal witness Paula Trim.
- Whether the government's failure to disclose Trim's probation worksheet and prior arrests violated Brady and Giglio.
- Whether Newman's prior convictions were admissible to impeach his out-of-court hearsay statements under Federal Rules of Evidence 806 and 609.
- Whether the district court improperly excluded expert psychiatric testimony concerning Newman's susceptibility to inducement in support of his entrapment defense.
Holdings
- The government did not violate the Jencks Act because the DEA report and agent's notes were not a witness statement within 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e): Trim neither signed nor otherwise adopted or approved the report, and the materials were not substantially verbatim contemporaneous recordings.
- The failure to disclose Trim's probation worksheet did not warrant reversal because the arrests were not convictions usable for impeachment, the information was publicly available, and the omission did not affect Newman's substantial rights.
- Newman's convictions for theft-forgery and theft by deception were properly admitted under Rule 609(a)(2) to impeach his out-of-court hearsay statements under Rule 806. Any error in admitting the theft and felony-theft convictions was harmless.
- When an entrapment defense is raised, expert psychiatric testimony may be admissible to show that a mental disease, defect, or subnormal intelligence made the defendant unusually susceptible to inducement, but the district court acted within its discretion in excluding this proffered testimony because of its inadequate and confusing presentation, timing, and improper focus on ultimate intent.
Key quotations
“We conclude that when an entrapment defense is raised, expert psychiatric testimony is admissible to demonstrate that a mental disease, defect or subnormal intelligence makes a defendant peculiarily susceptible to inducement.” (at 164)
“The expert may not offer an opinion on the ultimate issues of whether the defendant was in fact induced to commit the crime or lacked predisposition.” (at 164)
Factual background
A confidential source told the DEA that Keith and Andrea Newman were trafficking cocaine. An undercover DEA agent purchased cocaine from Keith Newman on three occasions. Newman claimed that business partners had arranged the transactions to take his business and asserted entrapment; he did not testify, but defense witnesses introduced several of his out-of-court statements. The government introduced evidence of his prior convictions and sought to rebut the entrapment defense, while the district court excluded proposed psychiatric testimony about his susceptibility to inducement.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Keith Newman, Andrea Newman, and Paula Trim for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine. Trim pleaded guilty, Keith and Andrea Newman proceeded to trial, and Keith was convicted while the jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Andrea. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Keith Newman's conviction.