When the victims of crimes are made whole again and the criminals responsible for their misfortune get their just deserts, justice is served and everyone rejoices. Sometimes, however, there is a fleeting sense that justice for the sake of justice is being pursued blindly, and that in this hot pursuit, someone’s rights are neglected. To prevent this shortsightedness from occurring, several protections have been put in place to ensure that suspects are not only convicted accurately, but also fairly. If these problems persist, the aggrieved party can appeal to an appellate court, which acts as a troubleshooter for defects in the trial court’s decisions. A recent case that demonstrates how the justice system contemplates its process to ensure fairness is United States v. Gregory.

A 2019 police investigation uncovered a drug trafficking circle operating in and around the Birmingham, Alabama area. Using controlled purchases, intercepted communications, a cooperating informant, and pole cameras, four individuals were arrested: Rolando Antuain Williamson, Hendarius Lamar Archie, Ishmywel Calid Gregory, and Adrien Hiram Taylor. The government believed that they were part of a drug trafficking business selling and distributing heroin, cocaine, meth, and marijuana and convicted them on multiple charges for drug distribution and conspiracy.

The trial took place in the Northern District of Alabama- a federal district court. There, a grand jury indicted all four defendants on multiple charges, including operating a criminal enterprise, conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and separate cases for firearm offenses. The evidence used to secure the jury verdict included testimony describing their long-term drug dealings, recorded transactions, and intercepted communications. Notable among the testimonies offered was that of Agent Wayne Gerhardt, who intercepted a phone call between Archie and another person and was responsible for handling the pole cameras that were trained on Williamson’s home.

The defendants appealed, and their case was taken to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. There, a common theme appeared in their arguments: that the evidence used to convict them was obtained or admitted through unconstitutional or otherwise unjust means.

The pole cameras used to observe Williamson’s home were in fact installed there without a warrant, and Williamson said this was an infringement on his expectation of privacy pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. The numerous apartment and home searches were similarly argued by the defendants to be unlawful or otherwise nonexistent. They also argued that Agent Gerhardt’s testimony was wrongly admitted as evidence, and that the Court gave the jury improper instructions regarding the conviction’s requirements.

Although the pole cameras were installed with the objective of observing Williamson’s home, this was not an invasion of his privacy because the captured areas were entirely visible to the public, a fact acknowledged by Williamson himself. It therefore would have been unreasonable for these exposed and conspicuous areas to be protected by an expectation of privacy. Also, the fact that the pole cameras were designed to record continuously did not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation as Williamson alleged. This is because pole cameras by nature of their design are stationary objects that do not track a person’s exact movements, unlike a GPS or ankle monitor, which require higher degrees of surveillance and are fundamentally more intrusive.

Archie opposed the admittance of Agent Gerhardt’s testimony on the grounds that as a mere fact witness rather than an expert, Gerhardt was not qualified to tell the jury the definition of “a cup of ice,” which he described as slang for a particular quantity of meth. Again, the Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument because regardless of the format of Gerhardt’s testimony, there was no possibility that it could have played a role in deciding Archie’s verdict. Archie was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, not meth, so whatever error occurred in admitting Gerhardt’s testimony, if any, was inconsequential.

However, Gregory’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum a jury was authorized to give. On two separate counts, he was sentenced to a consecutive 480 months and 360 months, for a total of 840 months, or 70 years. This was a plain error on the part of the trial court, because the appropriate statutory maximum sentence that the jury could have given in this case was 30 years. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit reversed Gregory’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

The Eleventh Circuit also vacated Williamson’s conspiracy conviction because it is an inseparable component of managing a continuing criminal enterprise, which Williamson was also charged with. All CCE charges are therefore packaged with a conspiracy charge, so charging Williamson with both would have been redundant.

Cases like this illustrate how the justice system can fairly make evaluations about its own verdicts, and how it is designed to be a self-correcting instrument. The appellate court gave fair consideration for the defendants’ grievances, and found that most, but not all, of the decisions made in the trial court were just. It is important that any defendant who has unease with a trial’s outcome or proceedings gets the right to appeal to a higher court. This ensures that all parties are held accountable and gives us greater confidence in our justice system’s outcomes.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.