Clarifying Waiver of Evidentiary Objections and Batson’s Affiliation-Based Challenges: United States v. Tony Phillips

Introduction

United States v. Tony Phillips (3d Cir. June 4, 2025) arose from a five-month racketeering trial in the District of New Jersey against members of the Newark Crips gang. Defendants Corey Hamlet, Ahmad Manley, and Tony Phillips were convicted of murder, attempted murder, firearm offenses, assault, racketeering, and conspiracy. On appeal they challenged four principal rulings: (1) the admission of expert Cell Site Location Information (“CSLI”) testimony without a renewed Daubert objection, (2) the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a black juror who disclosed NAACP membership under Batson v. Kentucky, (3) alleged evidentiary errors including a Jencks Act omission and improper character questioning, and (4) prosecutorial statements about CSLI in closing argument. The Third Circuit affirmed in full, offering important guidance on preservation versus waiver of evidentiary objections on retrial and on Batson’s application to organizational affiliation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that (1) Defendants waived their Daubert challenges to Agent David’s expert CSLI testimony by affirmatively stating “no objection” at the retrial—even though they had objected in the first trial—because the precise factual context had changed and strategic choices were made; (2) a prosecutor’s peremptory strike of Juror 50, a black woman and NAACP member, did not violate Batson because affiliation with an advocacy organization can be a race-neutral reason; (3) Hamlet’s unpreserved Jencks Act claim and minimal character questioning (bracelet and Rolex) did not constitute plain error; and (4) the government’s characterization of CSLI in summation did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct or prejudice. The panel’s careful review of the record reaffirmed that these rulings fell squarely within the district court’s discretion or, if erroneous, were not “plain” errors affecting substantial rights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Hoffecker v. United States (530 F.3d 137): preserves objections on retrial only when the legal issue and factual context remain unchanged.
United States v. James (955 F.3d 336) and United States v. Brito (979 F.3d 185): distinguish “forfeiture” from strategic waiver when counsel affirmatively declines an objection at trial.
Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79) framework, with deference to district courts on intent; contrasted with United States v. Payne (6th Cir. 1992) and Guidry v. Lumpkin (5th Cir. 2021) on affiliation strikes.
United States v. Fulton (837 F.3d 281): reasonable inference from expert testimony does not require perfection and is not plain error absent miscarriage of justice.
United States v. Zarintash (736 F.2d 66): admission of sudden wealth evidence requires a sufficient nexus to the charged offense.

Legal Reasoning

Waiver vs. Preservation: The panel applied Hoffecker to conclude that the initial Daubert objections did not automatically preserve the CSLI challenge for a retrial with a different evidentiary posture. By expressly stating “no objection” at the retrial, counsel intentionally relinquished the right to contest Agent David’s qualifications or methodologies. Under James and Brito, strategic trial choices by counsel preclude appellate review absent exceptional circumstances.

Batson’s Affiliation Inquiry: At Batson step two, the government offered race-neutral reasons for striking Juror 50—her confidence in answering questions and her NAACP affiliation, which was tied to policy positions on mandatory minimums. The district judge held a second hearing, credited those reasons, and found no pretext at step three. Because organizational membership may reflect views relevant to sentencing issues, the panel deferred to the trial court’s factual finding of no discriminatory intent.

Jencks Act & Character Evidence: Hamlet’s counsel had all prior witness statements from the first trial, and the government disclaimed new Jencks material. Hamlet’s failure to pursue further production constituted waiver. Likewise, the brief, unobjected-to cross-examination about luxury items did not plainly affect the jury’s verdict given the overwhelming record and minimal trial focus on those photos.

Summation & CSLI Precision: In closing the prosecutor argued reasonable inferences—that phones were co-located with the defendants at critical times—without misquoting or fabricating data. Defense counsel highlighted the known limitations of tower “pie wedges,” and the jury was instructed that closing arguments are not evidence. Under Fulton, any imprecision did not rise to plain error.

Impact

This decision underscores the importance of active preservation of evidentiary objections at every stage. Lawyers should reaffirm motions in limine or Daubert challenges at retrial when factual nuances change. It also clarifies that Batson does not forbid peremptory challenges grounded in a juror’s membership in an advocacy group, absent proof of pretext. Finally, the ruling confirms that modest misstatements of expert evidence in summation will not automatically warrant reversal when the record shows defense argument of limitations and strong corroborative proof.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Daubert/Waiver: Objecting once does not preserve an objection if the trial context or evidence presentation changes. Saying “no objection” in court typically means you can’t complain on appeal later.
Batson Framework: (1) Prima facie showing of discriminatory strike; (2) prosecutor offers race-neutral reason; (3) court decides if reason is pretext. Judges’ credibility decisions are hard to overturn.
Jencks Act: Defendants can review witness statements after testimony. If you already have all the statements and say you don’t need more, you’ve waived the right.
Rule 404(b): You cannot introduce unrelated “bad acts” solely to show someone is a bad person. Sudden wealth can be relevant only if you tie it to the crime.
Plain Error: To reverse unobjected-to errors, the mistake must be clear, affect the outcome, and threaten trial fairness.
CSLI Evidence: Cell‐site data shows general proximity to tower coverage areas (“pie wedges”), not exact street‐level coordinates.

Conclusion

United States v. Tony Phillips provides non-precedential but instructive guidance on appellate review of evidentiary rulings and Batson challenges. It reaffirms that counsel must preserve objections when trial conditions materially change, that organizational affiliation can supply a race-neutral basis for a strike, and that minor closing‐argument imprecisions will not unravel convictions supported by powerful corroborative evidence. Trial lawyers should heed its lessons to safeguard issues for appeal and to understand the boundaries of permissible argument and juror selection under modern federal practice.