US v. James Kalbflesh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00083-JKB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999639680]. [14-4606]

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4606

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES KALBFLESH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00083-JKB-1)

Submitted:

July 29, 2015

Decided:

August 13, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erek L. Barron, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Mark L. Gross, Robert A. Koch,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
James Kalbflesh appeals the district court’s judgment after
the jury convicted him of conspiracy against rights in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (2012), deprivation of rights in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 242 (2012), and conspiracy in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2012).

On appeal, Kalbflesh contends that he was

prejudiced by the Government’s pre-indictment delay in violation
of his right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, and the
district court erred in admitting statements in violation of his
rights under the Confrontation Clause.

We affirm.

Kalbflesh first contends that the Government prejudiced him
“by

delaying

its

investigation

and

indictment

until

shortly

after a key witness’s death and days prior to expiration of the
statute of limitations.”

Second, he contends that the district

court’s admission of certain statements of the deceased witness
violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.
The

Fifth

Amendment

Due

Process

Clause

“would

require

dismissal of the indictment if it were shown at trial that the
pre-indictment delay in this case caused substantial prejudice
to appellees’ rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an
intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused.”
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971).

We review a

claim that pre-indictment delay violated due process de novo.
United States v. Shealey, 641 F.3d 627, 633 (4th Cir. 2011).
2

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

“We conduct a two-pronged inquiry to evaluate a defendant’s
claim

that

process.”
Cir.

pre-indictment

violated

his

right

to

due

United States v. Uribe-Rios, 558 F.3d 347, 358 (4th

2009)

(citation

defendant

has

prejudice.’”
because

delay

it

omitted).

satisfied

“First,

his

burden

Id. (citation omitted).
requires

not

only

that

we
of

ask

whether

proving

the

‘actual

“This is a heavy burden
a

defendant

show

actual

prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice, but also
that he show that any actual prejudice was substantial — that he
was meaningfully impaired in his ability to defend against the
. . . charges to such an extent that the disposition of the
criminal proceeding was likely affected.”

Shealey, 641 F.3d at

633-34 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
When

the

claimed

prejudice

is

the

unavailability

of

a

witness, the defendant must “demonstrate, with specificity, the
expected

content

of

that

witness’

testimony”

and

“that

the

information the witness would have provided was not available
from other sources.”
Cir. 1996).
which

would

Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 908 (4th

He “must relate the substance of the testimony
be

offered

by

the

missing

witnesses

.

.

.

in

sufficient detail to permit a court to assess accurately whether
the information is material to the accused’s defense.”
States

v.

Bartlett,

(citations omitted).

794

F.2d

1285,

1290

(4th

Cir.

United
1986)

“Speculative or conclusory claims alleging
3

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

‘possible’ prejudice as a result of the passage of time are
insufficient.”

Id. (citations omitted).

“Second, if that threshold requirement is met, we consider
the government’s reasons for the delay, balancing the prejudice
to the defendant with the Government’s justification for delay.”
Uribe-Rios, 558 F.3d at 358 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Government’s

“The basic inquiry then becomes whether the

action

in

prosecuting

after

substantial

delay

violates fundamental conceptions of justice or the community’s
sense of fair play and decency.”
quotation marks omitted).

Id. (citations and internal

“If delay results from a protracted

investigation that was nevertheless conducted in good faith,”
prosecuting

the

defendant

following

such

“investigative

delay

does not deprive him of due process, even if his defense might
have

been

somewhat

prejudiced

by

the

lapse

of

time.”

Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment “bars the
admission of ‘testimonial statements of a witness who did not
appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the
defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.’”
United

States

v.

Dargan,

738

F.3d

643,

650

(4th

Cir.

2013)

(quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)).
“Evidence

implicates

the

Confrontation

Clause

only

if

it

constitutes a testimonial statement — that is, a statement made
4

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

with ‘a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute
for trial testimony.’”

United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269

(4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358
(2011)).

“If a statement’s primary purpose is not to create a

record for trial, then the Confrontation Clause does not apply.”
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Statements
testimonial.

made

in

furtherance

of

a

conspiracy

are

not

See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 55; United States v.

Sullivan, 455 F.3d 248, 258 (4th Cir. 2006) (statements made by
co-conspirators during the course of and in furtherance of a
conspiracy

were

not

testimonial

statements);

cf.

Dargan,

738

F.3d at 650-51 (statements of one prisoner to another about a
crime that he had committed were not testimonial).

Moreover,

the Confrontation Clause “‘does not bar the use of testimonial
statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the
matter asserted.’”

United States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256, 272

(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 60 n.9)).
Although

we

review

an

alleged

Confrontation

Clause

violation de novo, “a violation may be found harmless on appeal
if the beneficiary of the constitutional error can prove beyond
a

reasonable

doubt

that

the

error

contribute to the verdict obtained.”

complained

did

not

Reed, 780 F.3d at 269

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

5

of

We may avoid

Appeal: 14-4606

Doc: 75

deciding

Filed: 08/13/2015

whether

there

was

a

Pg: 6 of 6

Confrontation

simply assume error if it was harmless.

Clause

error

and

Id. (citation omitted).

With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the record
and the parties’ briefs, and we conclude there was no reversible
error.

As the district court found, Kalbflesh has not shown

actual prejudice due to the Government’s investigative delay.
Even assuming prejudice, we are convinced that the delay did not
violate fundamental conceptions of justice or the community’s
sense of fair play and decency.

We further conclude that the

district court’s admission of statements of the deceased witness
did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The statements were

not testimonial because they were made in furtherance of the
conspiracy, not to create a record for trial.

Even assuming

error, we conclude it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6