WPCJ %ӟ>j ?ݵqw0hQO"'jѬYHrK8_J'6wcg#n j7оׄȼ[4x12P9Yaya1X@3C2)*Ü^^έǂK u rdakp u {)##xJZW#'{#Re'՟=ze:}msjr7qVAiؽxwW\ ϽЋu\~َ_c1h0լa7\:0NG*B^]HiӅ&}3qRć`մǼB+8M)}7&in1mBbR-#^Z/LzCQ"֢'S:lqU1stL@vp!bo].bP5d(qXy\@7 $ 0v^$ 0`$ 0`4% 0`% 0`% 0`T& 08& 0& 02' 0' 0:( 0Y&) 0_) 0 ) 0j* 0R, B*- D/. D+/. 0Z. D// 0 0 060 01 0:2 0^S2 0<22 0C3 0(3 AM4U6k4U>4 0N4U*-5-5-5-5-5W5W5W5W5W5W5W57778E*8f,8a.8bB8JJ8J8J=?U8A,BAFHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2$ !    =^XXdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular{.s Y.6X?,}backup3|xUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7&  d dG)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2C$ !  ($RSTIA<< c<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman(O$%2A`Arial  1 ' kllawck10kllawck1 .             TABLE A- - @ $  =^XXdd=    1    _Ԁ X^XXXHoganwasfoundguiltyofconspiracytopossesswithintent  todistributemorethanfiftygramsofasubstancecontaining  amountsofcocaineandcocainebase,andpossessionofcocaine \ base.Hewassentencedtotwohundredandsixtytwomonths' 2 imprisonment,tobefollowedbyfiveyearsofsupervisedrelease. X _Membrino_Ԁwasfoundguiltyofconspiracytopossesswithintentto . distributemorethanfiftygramsofasubstancecontainingamounts   ofcocaineandcocainebaseandwassentencedtoonehundredand   fiftyonemonths'imprisonment,tobefollowedbyfiveyearsof `  supervisedrelease.Hallwastriedseparatelyandconvictedof 6   managingaresidenceforthepurposeofmanufacturing,storing,  \  distributingandusingcocaineandcocainebase.Hewassentenced  2  totwentyfourmonthsofimprisonmentandthreeyearsofsupervised   release. @ $  =^XXdd=    2    _Ԁ X^XXXNewtonwastheonlydefendantwhocalledawitnessGlenn  Marchand,anexpoliceofficerwhohadaninteractionwithoneof  theprosecutionwitnesses.Althoughitisnotentirelyclear,the \ apparentpurposeincallingMarchandwastochallengethe 2 credibilityoftheprosecutionwitness.  $  =^XXdd=    3    _Ԁ X^XXXAlthoughNewton's1998taxreturnswerelistedonthe  Government'sExhibitList,wefindnoindicationthattheywere  introducedattrial.Neitherpartymakesanissueofthispossible \ * oversight.#X^XX X^#<4 9Z+ Courier New  " $  =^XXdd=    4    _ԀqX^XXXNewtoninitiallysubmittedtwomemorandabutsubsequently  filedamotiontowithdrawone.ThecourtcautionedNewtonthat  "thememothatyouareleftwithtakesapositionthatisfrivolous \ basedonthefactsofthiscaseandIwillneveracceptit." 2 DespiteNewton'sinsistencethatthememorandumthecourtdeemed X morebeneficialtoNewtonbewithdrawn,thecourtstated:"I've . read[thewithdrawn]memo,andifIthinkthere'sanythinginit   thatwillbenefitMr.Newton,Iwillgivehimthebenefitofthose   arguments."Thisstatementfurtherdemonstratesthecourt's `  willingnesstoconsiderthetotalityoftheevidencepresented.#X^XXqX^#  $  =^XXdd=    5    _qX^XXXԀNewtoncomplainsthatthecourtfailedtoresolveadispute  overconversionofpowdercocainetocrackcocaine.However,in  theabsenceofexperttestimonyontherelativeweights,thecourt \ didnotconsiderthegovernment'sargumentthatNewtonsoldmore 2 than150gramsofcrackbasedonhispurchaseofmorethan150 X gramsofpowdercocaine.Therefore,thecourtrestrictedits . determinationofthequantityofcrackattributabletoNewtonto   theamountsoldbytheconspiracyofwhichNewtonwasreasonably   aware.Becausethisremovedfromthesentencingequationthe `  quantityofcrackcocainethatcouldbemadefromthepowder 6   cocainethatNewtonpurchased,thisdecisionnottomakea  \  conversionfindingworkedinNewton'sfavor.#X^XXqX^# !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XgXXXXXg     fOagOah@UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#XgX#XXXg  FortheFirstCircuit #EX##X^XEw#  A'i) ` dE< ` A   No.021643 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @hh#MICHAELNEWTON, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A'i) ` dE<R` A S   @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE 4 ![Hon.PaulJ._Barbadoro_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  @*A'i) ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,   SelyaandLipez,CircuitJudges. O " A'i) ` dE<"` A "!%       MicheleJ.Woods,withwhomJoshuaD.Franklinwasonbrief, #' forappellant. $(   MarkE.Howard,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom b% ) ThomasP._Colantuono_,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrief,for 8&!* appellee. '^"+ *j'kddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  )$.)$  SI)D%/ `m@37739`m@SApril29,2003 *&1  RHC+&2" `m@37739 `m@ R()D%3  (  * ! |-(4? _    8^XXdd8l*,X` XX* qX^XXX^ ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thisappealinvolves,inpart,the  unusualclaimthatthedefendantMichaelNewton'sretrialwas x barredbytheDoubleJeopardyClause,U.S.Const.amend.V,because $t thetrialjudgeintentionallyprovokedhisrequestforamistrial.    @#I.Background  |   ` NewtonwasindictedwithWymanHogan,ErnestMembrinoand D   EdwardHallonOctober12,2000,byafederalgrandjurysittingin @  theDistrictofNewHampshire,andchargedwithconspiracyto   possesswithintenttodistributeandtodistributefiftygramsor H  moreofcocaineandcocainebaseinviolationof21U.S.C. D 841(a)(1),841(b)(1)(A)(iii),and846.Thefactsoftheconspiracy  pertaintoanextensiveoperationofbuyingpowdercocaine, L manufacturingcrackcocaine,andsellingbothpowderandcrack H cocainefromanumberofresidencesinandaroundtheKeene,New  Hampshirearea.Newtonwasprimarilychargedinconnectionwith P thesaleofcocaineinKeene,butoutsideoftheresidences L allegedlycontrolledbytheconspiracy'scrackcocainedistribution   operation. T!"  ` OnJanuary2,2001,priortojuryselection,codefendant #P$ EdwardHallnotifiedthedistrictcourtthathewouldpresenta $& defensethatwouldportraythecodefendantsinanunfavorable X&!( light,andmovedtoseverhiscasefromtheotherdefendants.The (T#* districtcourtdeniedthismotion.Theotherthreecodefendants )%, thenmovedforseverance.Thedistrictcourtlikewisedeniedtheir \+&. motionandproceededtotrial.Afterthejurywassworn,defendant  Hall'scounseldeliveredanopeningstatementthatcorroborated \ muchofthegovernment'sversionofevents.Theotherco X defendantsrenewedtheirrequestforseveranceandmovedfora   mistrial,whichthedistrictcourtgranted.Theretrialcommenced `  onJanuary16,2001,andresultedinNewton'sconvictionfor  \  conspiracytodistributemorethanfiftygramsofcrackcocaine.   OnMay16,2001,Newtonwassentencedtotwohundredandthirty d  fivemonths'imprisonment,tobefollowedbyfiveyearsof `  supervisedrelease.m #  1      ׀    ` Newtonappealsboththeconvictionandthesentence, h arguingthathisretrialafteraninitialmistrialwasprohibited d bytheDoubleJeopardyClause,U.S.Const.amend.V,thatthe  prosecutorviolatedNewton'sFifthAmendmentrighttoremainsilent l byimpermissiblycommentingduringclosingargumentonNewton's h failuretotestify,andthatthedistrictcourtcommittedanerror  oflawduringsentencingbyfailingtoexerciseindependent  judgmentonevidencepresentedpertinenttosentencing.Forthe \ reasonsstatedbelow,weaffirmNewton'sconvictionanddeclineto X setasidehissentence.      II.DoubleJeopardy  `   ` TheDoubleJeopardyClauseoftheFifthAmendment ( x  protectsadefendantinacriminalproceedingagainstrepeated $  prosecutionsforthesameoffense.UnitedStatesv.Dinitz,424   U.S.600,606(1976).However,theDoubleJeopardyClauseisnot ,|  anabsolutebartosuccessivetrials.JusticesofBostonMunicipal ( Courtv.Lydon,466U.S.294,308(1984).Theprotectionembodied  intheDoubleJeopardyClauseisapersonaldefensethatmaybe 0 waivedorforeclosedbyadefendant'svoluntaryactions,including , arequestfor,oreffectualconsentto,amistrial.UnitedStates  v.DiPietro,936F.2d6,9(1stCir.1991).Thus,inthiscaseof 4 retrialfollowingthedeclarationofamistrial,thekeyquestion 0 fordoublejeopardypurposesiswhetherthemistrialwasdeclared   withthedefendant'sconsent. 8!" ` ` Ifamistrialisdeclaredwiththedefendant's "4$ consent,sheisdeemedtohavewaivedany # % doublejeopardyclaimshemightotherwise $& have.If,ontheotherhand,thedefendant f% ' wishestoproceedtoaverdictbythejury <&!( empaneledtotryher,andthecourtdeclaresa 'b") mistrialoverherobjection,theDouble '8#* JeopardyClausewillbarthedefendant's ($+ retrialunlessmanifestnecessityrequiredthe )$, courttosoact. j*%-    @+&. fOa f f  ` ` UnitedStatesv.AguilarAranceta,957F.2d18,22(1stCir.1992)   (citingDinitz,424U.S.at608).Theonlycircumstanceinwhich \ thedefendant'sconsenttoamistrialdoesnotoperateasawaiver X ofherrighttoclaimdoublejeopardyiswheretheprosecutoror   thejudgeintentionallyprovokesthedefendanttorequestthe `  mistrial:"thecircumstancesunderwhich[]adefendantmayinvoke  \  thebarofdoublejeopardyinasecondefforttotryhimare   limitedtothosecasesinwhichtheconductgivingrisetothe d  successfulmotionforamistrialwasintendedtoprovokethe `  defendantintomovingforamistrial."Oregonv.Kennedy,456U.S.   667,678(1982)(emphasisadded).Here,Newtoninsiststhatthe h trialjudgeintentionallyprovokedhismistrialrequest. d  A.SequenceofEvents     ` ToevaluateNewton'sclaimwemustexaminecloselythe  sequenceofeventsthatpromptedthejudgetodeclareamistrial, 4 andwhattranspiredbetweenthejudgeandNewton'strialcounsel. 0 DefendantHall'scounselfirstraisedtheissueofseverance   immediatelypriortojuryselection.Basedonthevagueassertion 8!" ofadefensestrategythatwouldbeantagonistictotheother "4$ defendants,Hall'scounselrequestedthatHallbeseveredfromthe $& otherthreedefendants.Afterrequestingbutfailingtoobtain <&!( detailselucidatingtheproposeddefense,thetrialjudgedenied '8#*  themotion.Thethreeotherdefendantsthenmadeajointmotionto )$, severbasedonHall'srequest.Thejudgesimilarlydeniedthis  motionandproceededtoempanelthejuryandbeginthetrial. \   ` Duringhisopeningstatement,Hall'scounsel X characterizedHallas"avictim...notacriminal"andclaimed   thatHall"wasused"byhiscodefendants.Therewerenoimmediate `  objectionsbytheotherdefendantstothedefenseoutlinedin  \  Hall'sopeningstatement.Thefollowingmorning,however,counsel   foroneoftheotherdefendantsnotedHall'santagonisticdefense d  andraisedthepossibilityofrenewingthemotiontoseverHall `  fromthetrial.Newton'scounseljoinedintherenewedmotion.   Thejudgereservedrulingonthemotionuntiltheafternoon. h d ` dThatafternoon,duringanextensivecolloquyonthe d motiontosever,thejudgeexplainedtodefensecounselhis  positiononthemotion: l ` ` IwillnotgrantanymotiontoseverunlessI h doanindividualinquirywitheachdefendant > andascertainfromeachdefendantthatthey  understandwhatthismeans;thattheircaseis  beingseveredthatamistrialisbeinggranted p  thattheyarewaivinganydoublejeopardy F ! claimthattheymayhave;thattheyfully !l" understandthatiftheywanttogoaheadwith !B# trialwiththecurrentjury,theycan. "$ ` .` . /` ` ... t$& [I]fIweretograntamistrialbasedonthe  &p!( defendants'requestforamistrialbecauseof &F") thefailuretograntseveranceandthetrial '#* evidencejointlybeingprejudicialtothe (#+ defendantsintheireyes,Icouldgrantthat x)$, requestandnotmakeafindingofmanifest N*%- necessity,andnotwithstandingtheabsenceof $+t&. afindingofmanifestnecessity,the +J'/ defendantscouldbereprosecuted,  notwithstandingthedoublejeopardyclause.  ` 1` 11Inotherwords,thejudgewastellingthedefendantsthatifthey 2 requestedamistrialandhegrantedthisrequestdespitethe . absenceofmanifestnecessityfordeclaringsuchamistrial,the   DoubleJeopardyClausewouldnotbartheirreprosecution.Counsel B   foroneoftheotherdefendantsimmediatelyinterjected:"wedon't  >  agreewiththat...ifthecaselawsupportsthepositionthat   thistrialhasgonesofarthatjeopardyhasattached...and F  thatthey'reunabletoberetriedagainandthatitshouldbewith B prejudice,ofcourse,we'renotwaivingthat."Realizingthatthe  defendantsdidnotseemtounderstandtherelationshipbetween J theirrequestforamistrialandtheirwaiverofthedouble F jeopardybar,thecourtofferedfurtherexplanation:  ` ` SupremeCourtprecedentmakesveryclearthat N whereadefendantrequestsamistrial,he $t waivesanyrighthehastoassertthata J reprosecutiongivesrisetoadoublejeopardy   violation...Icangrantamistrialovera  defendant'sobjectionwithoutpresentinga |  doublejeopardyquestion,onlywherethereis R ! amanifestnecessity...Idon'tthinkI (!x" couldmakeamanifestnecessityfindinghere !N# unlessIcouldconcludethattherewasan "$$ overwhelmingprobabilitythatthejurycould #% disregardmyinstructionstodisregardany $& commentsin[Hall's]openingstatement...I V% ' couldn'tmakethatfinding.Icouldn'tfind ,&|!( manifestnecessity. 'R") ` 8` 88 ` Basedonthisdeterminationthattherewasnomanifest (#+ necessityforamistrial,thejudgethoroughlyexplainedtothe Z*%- defendantstheiroptionsregardingseveranceandmistrial: ,V'/ gOa g g  ` ` If[Hall]wantsamistrialandseveranceand  allthree[other]defendantswantamistrial  andseveranceIcoulddoeitheroftwothings. \ Icouldeithergranttheseverancemotionand 2 mistrialasto[Hall]andproceedtotrial X withthethreedefendants,givingalimiting . instructiontothejurytodisregard[Hall's]   openingstatement,orIcouldgranta   severanceandmistrialastothethree `  defendants,continueonwith[Hall]andgive 6   aninstructiontothejurytodisregardany  \  evidencethatwedetermineisadmissible  2  againstthethreebutnotagainst[Hall].   Iatthistimeamnotpersuadedbyany d  argumentthatthedefendantsmayhavethat :  mistrialisabsolutelyrequiredbecause `  there'smanifestnecessityforamistrial,but 6 nevertheless,iftheywantamistrialand   there'sapotentialforreprosecutionand  doublejeopardyissuesareplainlyaddressed, h I'mwillingtoconsidergrantingeveryone > mistrialsandjuststartingagainwith d separatetrialsforthetwogroups.> : ` =` =Thejudgethenaddressedeachattorneyindividuallytoascertain  howthedefendantswishedtoproceed. B ` ` TheCourt:0  Letmehearfromthedefendants. > Letmegothroughoneatatime.  [CounselforMembrino],whatdoes  yourclientwishtodo?p xx Counsel1:0  Mr.Membrinohasinformedmethat !l" hewishestoseverthetrialand !B# hewillwaivehisrighttoa"$xx TheCourt:0  Sohewantstoseverandaskfora t$& mistrial.J% 'xx Counsel1:0  Severandamistrial,yes,your &F") Honor.'#*xx TheCourt:0  Allright.Whatdoesyourclient x)$, wanttodo,[CounselforHogan]?N*%-xx   $+t&. Counsel2:0  Judge,I'veconferredwithhim.   Baseduponthereadingsfromthe  Courtastowhatthestatusofthe \ lawisonthat,we'rewillingto 2 Єwhatwewanttoseedoneisthe X casebesevered,mistrialand . severance.Hewillwaivehis   hewillnotasserthisrightsto   doublejeopardy.` xx TheCourt:0  Allright.And[Counselfor  \  Newton],whatdoyouwanttodo? 2 xx Counsel3:0  We'dliketoseverMr.Halland   proceed.d xx TheCourt:0  Andproceed?` xx Counsel3:0  Ortohaveamistrialwith   prejudice.Hedoesnotwantto  waivehisrighttoanyclaims.hxx ` D` DDThus,atthispoint,twooftheremainingdefendantsrequested d severanceofHallandamistrial,whereasNewtonrequested  severanceofHallandcontinuationofthetrialbeforethe l empaneledjury.ThejudgeunderstoodNewton'salternaterequest h for"mistrialwithprejudice"tomeanthatifthejudgegranteda  mistrialandforcedNewtontogototriallaterwithanewjury,it p  wouldbeoverNewton'sobjectionandthattherefore,sincethe !l" judgehadalreadydeterminedthattherewasnomanifestnecessity "$ foramistrial,doublejeopardymightbarNewton'sretrial. t$&  ` WithonlyNewtonwishingtoproceedwiththeempaneled  &p!( jury,thejudgemadeclearthatheacceptedtheneedfortwotrials '#* ЄoneforHallandanotherfortheotherthreedefendantsbut x)$, thathewas"notgoingto...gothroughtwoseparatetrialsfor $+t&. thatgroupofthree."Thethreeremainingdefendantswouldbe  triedtogether,eithernowwiththeempaneledjuryorlaterwitha \ newjury. Hewouldnotpermitthreetrials:oneforNewtonbefore X theempaneledjury,aseparatetrialforHallbeforeanotherjury,   andathirdtrialfortheothertwodefendantsbeforeyetanother `  jury.Becauseofthisrequirementthatthethreeremaining  \  defendantsbetriedtogether,andbecausehewouldnotgrantNewton   amistrialoverhisobjection,thejudgeconfrontedNewtonwitha d  choice:hecouldpersistinhisdesiretobetriedbeforethe `  empaneledjuryandtherebyoverridetherequestsoftheothertwo   defendantsforamistrialandatrialbeforeadifferentjury;or h hecouldjointhemintheirrequestsforamistrialandhencewaive d anyclaimthatdoublejeopardybarsretrial.Afterdadbrief  conferencewiththeotherdefenseattorneys,Newton'sattorney l indicatedthatNewtonwould"waivehisdoublejeopardyrightsand h askforamistrial."  d ` dBeforeacceptingthischoice,thedistrictcourtwas p  commendablycarefultoensurethatthedefendantunderstoodthe !l" consequencesofhisdecisiontorequestamistrial.Inanextended "$ colloquy,thejudgeascertainedthatNewtonunderstoodthathehas t$& aconstitutionalrightnottobetriedtwiceonthesamechargeand  &p!( thatbychoosingtomoveforamistrial,Newtonwouldbegivingup '#* thisright: x)$, ` TheCourt:0  0X  ...Butifyoudon'twanta $+t&. trialnow,youhavetounderstand +J'/ thatyouwillberetriedagainand  youwillgiveupyourrightto  claimdoublejeopardythat \ doublejeopardypreventsyour 2 retrial.Doyouunderstandthat?XX X  Newton:0  0X  Yes,Ido. X X  TheCourt:0  0X  Areyouwillingtogiveupthat `  right?6  X X  Newton:0  0X  Yes. 2 X X  ` WWWAfterthisclarificationoftheconsequencesofrequestinga   mistrial,therewasnofurthertalkbyNewtonofamistrialwith :  prejudice.  6 B.LegalAnalysis    ` Onappeal,acceptingthathe"reluctantlyagreedtowaive Z hisdoublejeopardyrights,"Newtonnowarguesthatthetrialjudge V "induced"himtodosobyexertingpressureonhimtorequesta  mistrialtoavoidtheconsequencesofthejudge'serrorinthe ^ denialofthepretrialmotiontosever"despitenumerouswarnings  Z fromcounselforMr.HallregardingMr.Hall'santicipateddefense  strategy."Heelaboratesonthisreneweddemandfora"mistrial b ! withprejudice"asfollows: "^# ` ` Inthewakeofthaterrorandconsequent # % prejudiceintroducedintheopeningstatement $& ofMr.Hall'scounsel,thetrialcourtshould f% ' haveknownthatanyconvictionarisingoutof <&!( thefirsttriallikelywouldbereversed.As 'b") such,thetrialcourtpresentedMr.Newton '8#* withanultimatumcontinuewithan ($+ irreparablyprejudicedtrial,atwhichMr. )$, Newtonhadalreadybeenimplicatedbyaco j*%- defendant,orconsenttoamistrial.Mr. @+&. Newtonwasessentiallyforcedtoforegohis ,f'/ rightnottobetriedmorethanonceinorder  tominimizethesignificanceofthetrial  court'sotherwiseobviouserror. \ Ѐ 2 ` ^` v^^Newtonseesinthisscenarioajudgewho"intendedtoprovokethe X defendantintomovingforamistrial,"andthusarguesthathis   casefallswithinthe"narrowexception"carvedoutbyOregonv. `  Kennedytotherulethat"wherecircumstancesdevelopnot  \  attributabletoprosecutorialorjudicialoverreaching,amotionby   thedefendantformistrialisordinarilyassumedtoremoveany d  barriertoreprosecution,evenifthedefendant'smotionis `  necessitatedbyprosecutorialorjudicialerror."Dinitz,424U.S.   at607.  h  ` Newton's"intentionalprovocation"scenarioisacreative d rewritingofwhattranspiredattrial.Thetrialjudgeconfronted  Newtonwithachoice,notanultimatum:hecouldbetriedbefore l theempaneledjurywiththeothertwodefendants,orhecouldjoin h theminrequestingamistrial,waivehisdoublejeopardyrights,  andbetriedwiththembeforeanewjuryatalaterdate.However, p  themerefactthatNewtonwasofferedachoiceoftwoimperfect !l" optionsdoesnotimplycompulsion."Thecriminalprocess,likethe "$ restofthelegalsystem,isrepletewithsituationsrequiringthe t$& makingofdifficultjudgmentsastowhichcoursetofollow.  &p!( Althoughadefendantmayhavearight,evenofconstitutional '#* dimensions,tofollowwhichevercoursehechooses,theConstitution x)$, doesnotbythattokenalwaysforbidrequiringhimtochoose." $+t&. McKunev.Lile,536U.S.24,41(2002)(quotingMcGauthav.  California,402U.S.183,213(1971))(internalquotationmarks \ omitted). X  ` IftherewasanypressureonNewtonasheconsideredthe   choiceposedbythecourt,itcamefromthecodefendantswho `  preferredamistrial.However,theopportunityforNewtonto  \  proceedwiththeempaneledjuryremained,andthereisno   indicationthat,ofthetwooptionsavailabletoNewton,thejudge d  preferredamistrialforwhichhesawnomanifestnecessity. `  Indeed,whenNewtonfirstindicatedthathewantedtoproceedwith   alimitinginstructionbeforetheempaneledjury,thejudge h immediatelydeterminedthat d ` ` thethingtodoistoconsiderapotential  severanceandmistrialasto[Hall]andtry  theotherthreetogether.Andthey'reasking l meforamistrial,andIwoulddenyitonthe B groundsthatthereisn'tmanifestnecessity, h andIwillinstructthejurytodisregard. > ` Qm` Cm_mTheessenceofthedoublejeopardyprotectionistherighttobe  triedbythejuryinitiallyempaneledunlessmanifestnecessity F ! requiresotherwise.UnitedStatesv.Jorn,400U.S.470,484 !B# (1971)("[W]herethejudge,actingwithoutthedefendant'sconsent, #% abortstheproceeding,thedefendanthasbeendeprivedofhis J% ' 'valuedrighttohavehistrialcompletedbyaparticular &F") tribunal'")(quotingWadev.Hunter,336U.S.684,689(1949)).To (#+ thisend,thejudgetooknoteoftheprinciplearticulatedin N*%- Scott,that"theimportantconsiderationforpurposesoftheDouble +J'/ JeopardyClauseisthatthedefendantretainprimarycontrolover  thecoursetobefollowedintheeventof[]error."UnitedStates \ v.Scott,437U.S.82,9394(1978).Hence,thejudgemadeclear X hiswillingnesstoissuealimitinginstructionandproceedwith   thejuryalreadyempaneled,therebypreservingNewton'srighttobe `  triedbytheoriginaljuryandbelyingNewton'sclaimthathewas  \  provokedintorequestingamistrial.Althoughhespecifically   foundthattherewasnomanifestnecessityforjudicialdeclaration d  ofamistrial,thejudgetoldthedefendantsthathewouldgrant `  theirrequestsforamistrialsolongastheyunderstoodthatthey   werewaivinganydoublejeopardyclaim.Bygivingthedefendants h thismistrialoption,thejudgegavethedefendantsmorelatitude d thanwasstrictlynecessaryindeterminingthecourseoftheir  trial. l  ` WhenNewton'sattorneyindicatedNewton'spreferencefor h anewtrial,thejudgespecificallyaskedherwhethershefeltthat  "anyimproperpressureha[d]beenbroughttobear."Shereplied p  thatshedidnot.Nevertheless,thejudgeagreedtogranta !l" mistrialonlyafteradequatelyinformingNewtonofthe "$ ramificationsofrequestingamistrialanddeterminingthat"allof t$& thedefendantshaveknowingly,voluntarilyandintelligentlywaived  &p!( theirrighttoclaimdoublejeopardyasabartoasecond '#* prosecution."Newtoncannotundothetrialjudge'sscrupulous x)$, attentiontothedoublejeopardyissuewithhisrevisionistaccount $+t&. ofthetrial.Byelectingtorequestamistrial,Newtonwaivedany  doublejeopardyclaim.Hischallengetohisretrialandsubsequent \ convictiononthisgroundmustfail. X    III.ClosingArgumentsoftheProsecutor    { ` Newtonclaimsthathedeservesanewtrialbecauseof |  prosecutorialmisconductarisingfromstatementsmadetothejury ( x  duringclosingarguments.SinceNewtondidnotmakea $  contemporaneousobjectiontothesestatements,wereviewforplain   errorthequestionofwhethertheprosecutorimpermissibly ,|  commentedonNewton'sfailuretotestify.UnitedStatesv. ( Roberts,119F.3d1006,101314(1stCir.1997).Underplainerror  review,"theappellantmustshow(1)theoccurrenceofanerror; 0 (2)thattheerrorisobviousorclearundercurrentlaw;and(3) , thattheerrorsubstantiallyandadverselyaffectstherightsof  theappellant."Id.at1014.Remedialdiscretioninthefaceof 4 plainerrorshouldbeexercised"iftheerrorseriouslyaffectsthe 0 fairness,integrityorpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings."   UnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S.725,736(1993)(citations 8!" omitted).Becausethecommentsoftheprosecutorwerenot "4$ improper,wefindnoerroratallinthetrialjudge'sfailureto $& addressthesecommentssuasponte. <&!(  ` Newtonpointstotwocommentsmadebytheprosecutor '8#* duringhisrebuttaltothedefendants'closingarguments.These )$, commentsmustbeevaluatedinthecontextofNewton'sdefenseas @+&. advancedinhisclosingargument.Newtondidnotpresentwitnesses  orhisowntestimonytodenyhisuseorpossessionofdrugs.o #  2      ׀ \ Instead,hisdefensefocusedonthechargeofconspiracy, X highlightedthelackofevidenceofanagreementbetweenthe   allegedcoconspirators,andquestionedthemotivesoftheco `  operatingwitnesses.Specifically,inherclosing,Newton's  \  counselsaidtothejury:   ` ` TheU.S.Attorney'sofficehasbought d  testimonyfromliars,fromthieves,from :  addicts,fromdealers,fromdesperate, `  desperatepeople.Frompeoplewhobutfor 6 theirabilitytocomeinhereandsaywhatthe   U.S.Attorneywants,wouldmostlikelyspenda  significantamountoftimeinjail. h ` h` vInhisrebuttaltothisclosingargument,theprosecutorasked:"Is d thereanytestimonyinthiscasethatpointsotherwise,thatreally  pointstootherpeoplewhomayhavebeentheleaders,organizersof l thisconspiracybesidesthesethree.Iwouldsuggesttoyouthat h therewasnone."   ` Inherclosingargument,Newton'sattorneyalsoasserted: p  "MikeNewtonwasaworkingman.Heworkedandweknowthatbecause !l" you'llseehistaxrecords,taxreturnsinevidence."p #  3      ׀Inresponse "$ tothisargument,theprosecutorstatedatthecloseofhis  rebuttal: \ ` ` [DefenseCounsel]says,well,myclientwas X workingandbecausethat'swhatthetax . recordsshow.Ifyoulookatthosetax   records,youwillseeIbelieveonthe1999   taxrecord,itsaysautomechanic.Ask `  yourselfwasthereanytestimonyinthiscase 6   indicatingthathewasinvolvedinrepairing  \  carsoranythingofthatlike.Ijustwantto  2  leaveyouwiththatthought.   ` ݉` ω` ` ` ]` Newtonarguesthatthisstatementandtheprioronebythe d  prosecutorconstitutedprohibitedcommentonhisexerciseofthe `  righttoremainsilent.    ` Itiswellestablishedthat"theFifthAmendment... h forbidseithercommentbytheprosecutionontheaccused'ssilence d orinstructionsbythecourtthatsuchsilenceisevidenceof  guilt."Griffinv.California,380U.S.609,615(1965).A l prosecutor'scommentdoesnotneedtobedirect;rather,a h prosecutormayrunafouloftheruleinGriffinbymakingsuch  commentsinferentially.See,e.g.,Glantzv.UnitedStates,810 p  F.2d316,322.Nevertheless,aswehavepointedoutrepeatedly, !l" thestandardis: "$ 8 ` Whether,inthecircumstancesofthe t$& particularcase,thelanguageusedwas J% ' manifestlyintendedorwasofsuchcharacter  &p!( thatthejurywouldnaturallyandnecessarily &F") takeittobeacommentonthefailureofthe '#* accusedtotestify.(#+` x` x  x)$, dId.(internalquotationsomitted);accordUnitedStatesv.Taylor,  54F.3d967,979(1stCir.1995).Moreover,"whenaprosecutor's \ comments,fairlyviewed,aresusceptibletotwoplausiblemeanings, X oneofwhichisunexceptionableandoneofwhichisforbidden,   contextfrequentlydeterminesmeaning."Taylor,54F.3dat979. `  Inaddition,"acourtshouldnotlightlyinferthataprosecutor  \  intendsanambiguousremarktohaveitsmostdamagingmeaningor   thatajury,sittingthroughalengthyexhortation,willdrawthat d  meaningfromtheplethoraoflessdamaginginterpretations." `  Donnellyv.DeChristoforo,416U.S.637,647(1974).    ` Withtheserulesasourguide,weconcludereadilythat h theprosecutor'scommentsdidnotrunafouloftheFifthAmendment. d Tosupporthisclaim,advancedinclosingargument,thatthetax  recordsestablishedthathewasaworkingmanwithasourceof l income!namely,anautomechanicNewton"wouldnothavehadto h relyonhisowntestimony."UnitedStatesv.Bey,188F.3d1,9  (1stCir.1999).Knowledgeofhisworkwouldeasilyhavebeen p  withinthecompetenceofotherwitnesseswhocouldhavetestified !l" atthetrial.Hence,thisisnotasituation"whencontradiction "$ [ofthegovernment'scase]wouldhaverequiredthedefendantto t$& takethestand,"UnitedStatesv.Flannery,451F.2d880,881(1st  &p!( Cir.1971),andhencetheprosecutor'squestioninrebuttal("Ask '#* yourselfwasthereanytestimonyinthiscaseindicatingthathe x)$, wasinvolvedinrepairingcarsoranythingofthatlike.")didnot $+t&. constituteinappropriatecommentonthedefendant'sfailureto  testify.SeeBey,188F.3dat9;Flannery,451F.2dat882. \  ` Whentheprosecutoraskedinrebuttaliftherewasany X testimonyinthecasethat"reallypointstootherpeoplewhomay   havebeentheleaders,organizersofthisconspiracybesidesthese `  three,"hewasrespondingtothetheoryofthedefense,also  \  advancedinclosingargument,thattheprosecutionwitnesseswho   testifiedabouttheroleofthedefendantsinthedrugconspiracy d  shouldnotbebelievedbecausetheywere"liars...thieves.. `  .addicts...desperate,desperatepeople."Viewedincontext,   theprosecutor'squestionisa"commentontheplausibilityofthe h defensetheory...[T]hegovernmentisentitled,tosomeextent, d tocommentonadefendant'sfailuretoproduceevidencesupporting  thedefensetheoryofthecase."Glantz,810F.2dat321.Hence l thecommentatissuedidnotconstituteimpropercommenton h Newton'sexerciseofhisFifthAmendmentrights.     IV.Sentencing  p   ` Newtonwasconvictedbythejuryofconspiracyto 8!" distributemorethanfiftygramsofcrackcocaine.Inresponseto "4$ aspecialquestionontheverdictform,thejuryspecificallyfound $& that"MichaelNewtonreasonablyforesawwhilehewasamemberof <&!( theconspiracythattheconspiratorspossessedwithintentto '8#* distributeand/orintendedtopossesswithintenttodistribute )$, fiftygramsormoreofcrackcocaineaspartoftheconspiracy." @+&. Basedonthisfinding,theprosecutionarguedatsentencingthat  theweightof"allbuysoccurringduringthecourseofthe \ conspiracy..."shouldbeattributabletohimforsentencing X purposes.    ` Thesentencingjudgefound"byapreponderanceofthe `  evidence"thatonehundredandfiftygramsofcrackwas  \  attributabletoNewtonbasedonthefactthathewasamemberof   theconspiracy: d  ` g` gTheconspiracywastodistributeinexcessof `  onehundredandfiftygramsofcrack.While 6 Mr.Newtonwasamemberoftheconspiracy,he   couldreasonablyforeseethatinfactthatwas  theobjectiveoftheconspiracyduringthe h timethathewasamemberofit,andtherefore > itismyjudgementthatthatcrackshouldbe d attributedtohimforpurposesofsentencing." : ` ` zBasedonthisfinding,thejudgegaveNewton"thelightestsentence  foralevelthirtysix,criminalhistorycategorythreedefendant B thatIcangiveyou,whichistwohundredandthirtyfivemonths." > Headdedthat,evenifhehadfoundthatonlyfiftytoonehundred  andfiftygramsofcrackcocainehadbeenattributabletoNewton, F ! he"stillwouldhavegivenhimatwohundredandthirtyfivemonth !B# sentencebecausetwohundredandthirtyfivemonthswouldhavebeen #% withintheapplicablerangethere." J% '  ` Newtonarguesthathissentenceshouldbevacatedbecause &F") thedistrictcourterredasamatteroflawbyfailingto"exercise (#+ independentjudgment"initsconsiderationofevidencepertinentto N*%- sentencing.Thesentencingcourt'sduty"independentlytoconsider +J'/ profferedinformationthatisrelevanttomattersofconsequencein  thesentencingdetermination,"UnitedStatesv.Tavano,12F.3d \ 301,307(1stCir.1993),derivesfromtheDueProcessClause, X whichguaranteeseverydefendanta"righttobesentencedupon   informationwhichisnotfalseormateriallyincorrect."Id.at `  305.Specifically,Newtonarguesthatthedistrictcourt  \  improperlydisregardedthetestimonyontheextentofNewton's   involvementinandknowledgeoftheconspiracy,andfailedto d  considerNewton'sargumentsonthequantityofdrugsattributable `  tohimforsentencingpurposes.    ` Section6A1.3oftheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines h requiresthat"whenanyfactorimportanttothesentencing d determinationisreasonablyindispute,thepartiesshallbegiven  anadequateopportunitytopresentinformationtothecourt l regardingthatfactor."U.S.SentencingGuidelinesManual h 6A1.3(a)(2001).Whilethisprovisionencompassesadutyto  considertheinformationpresented,Tavano,12F.3dat306,itdoes p  notimplya"dutyofblindacceptance."Id.at307.After !l" examiningtherelevantevidence,thesentencingcourthasbroad "$ discretionto"pickandchoose"andultimatelycredittrial t$& testimonyifitcarriespersuasiveforceinaparticularcase.Id.  &p!(  ` Here,thedistrictjudgeaffordedNewtonample '#* opportunitytosubmitargumentspertinenttosentencingandgave x)$, carefulandthoroughconsiderationtotheargumentspresented. $+t&. Whenitbecameclearduringtheinitialsentencinghearingthat  therewasadisputeastothequantityofdrugsthatcouldbe \ attributedtoNewtonforsentencingpurposes,thecourt X specificallydeferredmakingajudgmentontheweightofthedrugs   untilitreceivedsupplementalmemorandafromboththeparties `  supportingtheirrespectivearguments.  \   ` Newtonarguesthatthecourtranafoulofits"dutyto   consider"bysummarilydisregardingboththememorandumNewton d  submittedonthedrugquantityr #  4      ׀andHogan'stestimonyatthe `  sentencinghearingregardingtheextentofNewton'sinvolvementin   theconspiracy.However,unlikeTavano,wherethedistrictcourt h "formulatedaperseruledeclaringtrialtestimonydeterminative d ofdrugquantity,totheexclusionofallotherevidencebearingup  onthesamesetoftransactions,"Tavano,12F.3dat30405,the l districtcourtherecarefullyreadNewton'smemorandaand h consideredtheevidencebeforemakinganindependentdetermination  thathisargumentswerewithoutmerit.Thecourtnotonlyallowed p  Hogan'stestimonybutitalsoquestionedHoganonthe !l" h@ h  h  inconsistenciesbetweenthetestimonyofferedandtheconfession  thathemadeduringhisownsentencing.Basedonthese \ discrepancies,thecourtfoundHogantobeanunreliablewitness X anddidnotcredithistestimony.Thesearepreciselythe   determinationsoffactthatthesentencingcourthasdiscretionto `  make.Becauseitadequatelyconsideredtheprofferedevidence  \  relevanttosentencing,thecourtdidnotoffendthedictatesof   dueprocesssetforthinTavano.Therefore,itdidnoterrasa d  matteroflaw. `   ` Wereviewforclearerrorthecourt'sfactual   determinationonthequantityofdrugsattributabletoNewtonfor h sentencingpurposes.Thecourtfoundby"apreponderanceofthe d evidence"that,duetohismembershipintheconspiracyandthe  forseeabilityoftheobjectivesoftheconspiracy,150gramsof l crackwereattributabletoNewton.ContrarytoNewton'sargument, h thesentencingcourtisnotrequiredtomakeexplicitfactual  findingsonthedetailsofeachtransactionconductedinthecourse p  oftheconspiracy,whensuchfindingshavebeendetailedattrial !l" andinthesubmissionsoftheparties.Tavano,12F.3dat307("As "$ ageneralrule,atrialcourtlawfullymaymakeimplicitfindings t$& withregardtosentencingmatters,incorporatingbyreference  &p!( suitablydetailedsuggestionslimnedinthePSIReportoradvanced '#* byaparty.").Thus,itwaswellwithintheboundsofthecourt's x)$, discretiontocreditevidenceproducedattrialandsetforthin $+t&. thegovernment'ssentencingmemorandum.s #  5      ׀Therefore,wereject  Newton'sargumentthatthecourterredinitsdeterminationofthe \ quantityofdrugsattributabletoNewtonforsentencingpurposes. X    & t V.Conclusion    W ` Thedistrictcourtwasthorough,fairandlegallycorrect'tLc |  atallstagesofNewton'strial.Forthereasonsstatedabove,the ( x  judgmentofthedistrictcourtis affirmed . $  #X^XXqX^b # `