NO. _____________ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------♦------------------------- BOB LEE JONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. -------------------------♦------------------------- ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -------------------------♦------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI -------------------------♦------------------------- James P. McLoughlin, Jr. Pro Bono Counsel of Record Frank E. Schall MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 (704) 331-1054 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Dated: October 16, 2018 THE LEX GROUPDC 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, #5190 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0001 (800) 856-4419 www.thelexgroup.com i QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the District Court’s demonstration of bias against the defense in violation of the Judge’s ethical canons and in front of the jury impeded Mr. Jones’ right to a fair trial in violation of Mr. Jones’ Due Process rights. II. Whether the Circuit Court’s application of the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is too narrow, when other circuit courts permit a longer lapse of time. III. Whether the defense of involuntary intoxication is an admissible defense to certain federal charges requiring specific intent -- here, specifically a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. ii LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................... i LIST OF PARTIES ........................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... vi OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....................... 2 FIFTH AMENDMENT ....................................................................................... 2 FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 803(1) .......................................................... 2 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) ................................................................................................ 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 4 Events on the Night in Question ........................................................................ 4 Exclusion of Exculpatory Evidence .................................................................. 11 Involuntary Intoxication Defense ..................................................................... 16 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .......................................................... 17 I. The District Court violated Mr. Jones’ Due Process rights by inserting its own biases into the trial, evident by its comments throughout the trial against the defendant’s trial attorney, the merits of Mr. Jones’ defense, and all defense witnesses ....................... 18 II. The Present Sense Impression Exception to the Hearsay Rule Should Be Clarified to Resolve Disparity in Its Application ................ 27 iv III. The Court should clarify that involuntary intoxication is available as a defense under federal law .............................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX: Unpublished Opinion of The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered July 18, 2018 ............................................................................. 1a Judgment of The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered July 18, 2018 ............................................................................. 7a Judgment in a Criminal Case of The United States District Court of North Carolina entered July 19, 2017 ........................................................................... 10a Bill of Indictment entered August 2, 2016 ........................................................................ 17a Transcript of Jury Trial Proceedings before The Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on October 5, 2016 ................................................................................ 19a Testimony of Officer Nathan Dietiker: Direct Examination by Mr. Hess ......................................................... 51a Cross Examination by Mr. Lindsay ..................................................... 77a Redirect Examination by Mr. Hess ................................................... 105a Recross Examination by Mr. Lindsay ............................................... 207a Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Hess ..................................... 211a Testimony of Officer Hunter Welborn: Direct Examination by Mr. Pritchard ............................................... 214a Cross Examination by Mr. Lindsay ................................................... 250a v Transcript of Jury Trial Proceedings before The Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on October 6, 2016 .............................................................................. 287a Testimony of Julia Garcia Vargas: Direct Examination by Mr. Lindsay .................................................. 295a Cross Examination by Mr. Pritchard ................................................ 315a Redirect Examination by Mr. Lindsay .............................................. 331a Testimony of Bobby Dyer: Direct Examination by Mr. Lindsay .................................................. 335a Cross Examination by Mr. Hess ........................................................ 340a Further Direct Examination by Mr. Lindsay .................................... 374a Further Cross Examination by Mr. Hess .......................................... 386a Redirect Examination by Mr. Lindsay .............................................. 396a Defendant’s Notice of Appeal entered July 26, 2017 ......................................................................... 514a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919) ........................................................................................ 16 Davis v. United States, No. 5:11-CR-311-BO-1, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118062 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016) .................................................................................... 32 Faucett v. United States, 872 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 30, 31 Hilyer v. Howat Concrete Co., Inc., 578 F.2d 422 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ........................................................................... 28 In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) ........................................................................................... 18 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) ...................................................................................... 19-20 Miller v. Crown Amusements, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 703 (S.D. Ga. 1993)...................................................................... 29 Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933) ........................................................................................ 23 United States v. Bindley, 157 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 1998) ................................................................... 30, 31 United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1979) ....................................................................... 27, 28 United States v. Carson, 455 F.3d 335 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 20 United States v. Donato, 99 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ................................................................. 20, 21, 23 United States v. El-Bey, 873 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................... 20 vii United States v. F.D.L., 836 F.2d 1113 (8th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 30, 31 United States v. Fuller, 436 F. App’x 167 (4th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 32 United States v. Hawkins, 59 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds and remanded by 516 U.S. 1168 (1996) ................. 28 United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607 (4th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................. 27 United States v. Mejia-Velez, 855 F. Supp. 607 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)..................................................................... 29 United States v. Mitchell, 145 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 28 United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 28, 29 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION U.S. CONST. amend. V ........................................................................................