ILNews

7th Circuit affirms drug convictions, sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an Indiana man’s convictions and 360-month sentence for drug-related offenses, rejecting his claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated and the starting time of his offenses was incorrectly determined by the District Court.

In United States of America v. Danny Harmon, 12-1502, Danny Harmon was indicted on several drug charges, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. His trial was set for July 18, but the government sought and received one 30-day continuance to gather evidence that since his indictment, Harmon tried to have a witness killed, attempted to intimidate a witness, and attempted to dissipate assets. The trial began Aug. 22, and he was found to have trafficked an average of 113.4 kilograms of marijuana per month for 10 months of the year from December 2001 until January 2011 based on the presentencing report.

Harmon argued that the actual beginning of the trafficking period should have been August 2002, which would have reduced the amount of the drug attributable to him to under 10,000 kilograms, leading to a lesser sentence.

On appeal, he claimed the trial continuance violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the disclosure of a prior drug conviction by a witness deprived him of a fair trial. He also claimed the District Court erred in its fact finding at sentencing.

The 7th Circuit noted that Harmon’s trial date began within 3 ½ months of the date of his indictment and that the “delay is so short that Harmon cannot get past the threshold requirement.”

In addition, some of the delay was attributable to Harmon. The government brought additional charges of attempted murder, witness intimidation and disposing of assets that didn’t occur until after he was indicted and it had to gather more evidence on these for trial. It does not matter that he was not convicted of these charges.

The judges also found that his second argument – that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial which was based on the disclosure of his prior drug conviction – didn’t fare any better. A witness mentioned a prior conviction of Harmon's but did not specify it was a drug conviction. Harmon argued the jury didn’t disregard the stricken testimony and that striking the testimony was insufficient to outweigh its prejudicial impact.

“The testimony that Harmon had a prior conviction did not deprive Harmon of a fair trial and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. And even if there was error in the introduction of the fact of Harmon’s prior conviction, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt on the counts of conviction,” Judge John D. Tinder wrote.

The judges also found it was reasonable for the court to conclude that the conspiracy did not start from scratch when Bradford Raines joined in August 2002 but that it ran for years prior to that. As such, the drug quantity easily exceeded 10,000 kilograms.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT