## Facts

- A Baltimore drug-trafficking organization known as “Special” used violence to protect its operations and intimidate witnesses.
- In October 2004, James Wise was murdered; Special dealer John Dowery witnessed the killing.
- Dowery began cooperating with law enforcement, and his information contributed to prosecutions of Special members for Wise’s murder.
- In October 2005, as those prosecutions approached, James Dinkins (a Special “enforcer”) and another member shot Dowery repeatedly outside Dowery’s home; Dowery survived and later identified Dinkins as a shooter.
- Dowery was relocated for safety, but about a month later Melvin Gilbert and Darron Goods killed Dowery.
- The government sought to introduce Dowery’s out-of-court statements, including statements about Special’s drug activities and his identification of Dinkins.
- A federal jury in the District of Maryland convicted Dinkins, Gilbert, and Goods of multiple offenses involving witness killings/attempted killings, a coconspirator’s murder, and related narcotics and firearms crimes.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by empaneling an anonymous jury and withholding certain juror biographical information from the parties.
2. Whether admitting Dowery’s hearsay statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) violated the defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights.
3. Whether a defendant may forfeit confrontation and hearsay objections based on reasonably foreseeable witness-silencing conduct by coconspirators, including acts occurring after the defendant’s arrest, when within the conspiracy’s scope and in furtherance of it.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed all convictions and the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the anonymous jury was justified by evidence of violent witness intimidation and killings and that safeguards sufficiently reduced prejudice to the defense.
- The court held Dowery’s statements were admissible under Rule 804(b)(6) and that the defendants forfeited Confrontation Clause objections through wrongdoing intended to prevent Dowery’s testimony.
- The court held foreseeable witness-silencing acts by coconspirators, including post-arrest acts, can be attributed to a conspirator when committed within the scope of and in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy.

## Legal Principles

- An anonymous jury may be used when the record shows a serious risk of juror intimidation or harm and the court employs measures that preserve meaningful voir dire and minimize unfair prejudice.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), a party forfeits hearsay objections to a witness’s statements if the party wrongfully caused (or acquiesced in causing) the witness’s unavailability intending to prevent testimony.
- The Confrontation Clause forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine likewise requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.
- In a conspiracy, a defendant may be treated as having forfeited confrontation and hearsay objections when a coconspirator’s witness-silencing act is within the scope of and in furtherance of the conspiracy and is reasonably foreseeable, even if committed after the defendant’s arrest while the conspiracy continues.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the use of an anonymous jury in a violent, witness-intimidation prosecution and held that the defendants forfeited Confrontation Clause and hearsay objections to a murdered witness’s statements because the witness’s killing was a foreseeable, conspiracy-furthering act intended to prevent testimony.


United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012)