indicted for the earlier bank robbery and for being a felon in
possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).
Johnson pled guilty to all of the charges in May 2010, and
was awaiting sentencing in August 2010 when Quinns trial
was scheduled to begin.
C.
Quinns Trial
This Appeal
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The Remedy
30
31
D.
Bad Faith
32
Quinns Appeal
33
United States v. Mike, 655 F.3d 167, 173 (3d Cir. 2011)
(Ultimately, the question of whether clearly exculpatory
evidence is necessary to present an effective defense is a
decision calling upon the sound judgment of the district court
judge in a position to listen to the witnesses and evaluate the
tenor of trial narratives.). When the alleged violation
includes issues of law and fact[,] . . . we review the district
courts legal conclusions on a de novo basis and its factual
findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Joseph, 996
F.2d at 39; see United States v. Risha, 445 F.3d 298, 303 (3d
Cir. 2006).
On appeal, Quinn argues for the first time that the
prosecution engaged in misconduct by interfering with
Johnsons testimony. He alleges that the Governments
motion to delay Johnsons sentencing until after Quinns trial
caused Johnson to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to
testify. Yet before trial Quinn expressly disclaimed an
argument that the prosecution engaged in misconduct. At
argument on his motion in limine to have Johnson immunized
by the Court, Quinns counsel agreed that the prosecutorial
misconduct theory was not at issue because Quinn did not
allege the government [was] doing anything improper.
Because he raises this argument for the first time on
appeal, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b);
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We
follow the four-step inquiry set out in United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 73236 (1993). First, there must be an error
or defectsome sort of deviation from a legal rule . . . .
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (alteration and internal quotation
marks omitted). Second, the legal error must be clear or
obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Id.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Conclusion
41
42