United States v. Williams, No. 11-3437 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThese consolidated appeals involved defendant's direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal of the dismissal of the motions pertaining to a criminal forfeiture count and an in rem civil action. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, or alternatively, suppress defendant's statements made to counsel; did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to a co-conspirator; did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit all 170 hours of recordings or through its comments regarding defendant's pro se presentation of evidence; and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever. The court also held that defendant was not entrapped as a matter of law into committing certain offenses; the district court did not err in admitting the fingerprint cards at issue; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal forfeiture count and did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's motion for same; and defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated by the government's in rem civil forfeiture complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Because defendant did not have an attorney-client relationship with an attorney who was cooperating with authorities, the government could not have unconstitutionally intruded into the relationship, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment or suppress his statements to the attorney based on a claim of outrageous government conduct; the evidence failed to show defendant was coerced into making statements to a cooperating co-conspirator; the offense regarding which the cooperating co-conspirator questioned defendant was different than the offense for which defendant had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, and the questioning did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel; claims that the district court's trial conduct, including evidentiary rulings and comments, prejudiced defendant and denied him a fair trial are rejected; various pro se arguments, including claims regarding severance, evidentiary rulings and an entrapment defense rejected; district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice a criminal forfeiture count aftet the court's failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(5)(A); nor did the court err in granting the government's motion to dismiss the count without prejudice; various pro se motions denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.