Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Rashad Muhammad, 4th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Rashad Muhammad, 4th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Rashad Muhammad, 4th Cir. (2012)
No. 11-4742
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-01237-PMD-1)
Argued:
Decided:
ARGUED: Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United
States
Attorney,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
During
Rashad
Saleem
Muhammads
criminal
trial,
the
government produced for the first time a statement made by codefendant Damon Milford in March 2010 that tended to exculpate
Muhammad. Relying on the parties agreement that the statement
created a problem under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123
(1968), the district court granted a mistrial without Muhammads
consent. The court later denied Muhammads motion to dismiss the
indictment
on
double
jeopardy
grounds,
reasoning
that
the
necessity
determination
when
standard
mistrial
applies
was
to
declared
double
jeopardy
without
consent).
of
the
non-testifying
defendant
co-defendants
violates
the
confession
Sixth
that
Amendments
(4th
Cir.
2010)
(emphasis
added).
Thus,
[u]nless
the
trial,
discuss Bruton
first
party
the
in
to
parties
detail.
raise
and
the
Muhammad
Bruton,
see
district
appears
J.A.
to
493,
court
did
not
have
been
the
and
he
clearly
with
prejudice,
government
acknowledged
see
that
J.A.
506.
Milfords
For
March
its
part,
2010
the
statement
to
dismiss,
the
court
stated:
The
government
and
had
begun
created
constitutional
problem
based
upon
district
court
has
broad
discretion
in
determining
and
concomitant
denial
of
motion
to
dismiss
an
mistrial
declaration
was
prompted
by
the
parties
light
of
the
parties
changed
positions
concerning
on
reevaluate
appeal).
whether
On
remand,
manifest
the
necessity
district
existed
court
to
should
declare
the