Preservation of Expert-Testimony Objections and Batson Affiliation Strikes: Third Circuit’s Clarification in United States v. Hamlet, Phillips & Manley

Introduction

United States v. Corey Hamlet, Tony Phillips, and Ahmad Manley (3d Cir. June 4, 2025) arose out of a multi-defendant federal racketeering and violent‐crime prosecution in New Jersey. The three appellants—leaders and foot soldiers of rival factions of the Newark Crips—were convicted of murder, attempted murder, firearms offenses, assault, racketeering, and conspiracy following two lengthy trials. On appeal they challenged: (1) the admission of expert Cell-Site Location Information (“CSLI”) testimony, (2) the government’s peremptory strike of a black juror affiliated with the NAACP, (3) alleged evidentiary errors under the Jencks Act and Rule 404(b), and (4) purported misstatements in the prosecutor’s closing argument. The Third Circuit consolidated their appeals and affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held:

Defendants waived any Daubert challenge to the government’s expert CSLI testimony by affirmatively saying “no objection” at the retrial. Pre-trial objections do not automatically carry over when the record and scope of testimony change.
The district court did not clearly err in denying a Batson challenge to the prosecution’s strike of Juror 50, a black woman who disclosed membership in the NAACP. Organizational affiliation, even when correlated with race, may be a race-neutral basis for a peremptory strike if there is no showing of purposeful discrimination.
Appellant Hamlet waived any Jencks Act claim by acknowledging he already had all relevant witness statements. His unobjected‐to cross-examination on personal wealth likewise did not amount to plain error in light of the overwhelming evidence.
The prosecutor’s characterization of CSLI evidence in closing argument did not come close to egregious error or a manifest miscarriage of justice under plain‐error review.

Accordingly, the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Hoffecker v. United States (530 F.3d 137): objections to expert evidence must be renewed when factual or evidentiary circumstances change between trials.
United States v. James (955 F.3d 336) and United States v. Brito (979 F.3d 185): distinguishing forfeiture from waiver, and respecting tactical choices by counsel.
Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79): the three‐step framework for addressing peremptory challenges based on race, and the high deference owed to trial court findings on discriminatory intent.
Snyder v. Louisiana (552 U.S. 472), Flowers v. Mississippi (588 U.S. 284): reaffirming deference to trial judges on Batson determinations absent clear error.
United States v. Payne (962 F.2d 1228), Guidry v. Lumpkin (2 F.4th 472), United States v. Hinton (94 F.3d 396): circuit authority upholding strikes for NAACP/advocacy‐group affiliation as race-neutral.
United States v. Fulton (837 F.3d 281): prosecutorial summation may draw reasonable inferences from expert evidence; plain error review applies to unpreserved misconduct claims.
United States v. Mastrangelo (172 F.3d 288): contrast in circumstances where repeated misstatements of a stipulation, without overwhelming evidence, warranted reversal.

Legal Reasoning

1. Expert‐Testimony Waiver: The court applied Hoffecker to conclude that expert testimony involves evolving factual details (methods, scope, presentation), so a Daubert objection must be re-asserted if the testimony’s contours change. By saying “no objection” at retrial to Agent David’s CSLI slides and methodologies, Manley and Phillips intentionally relinquished the right to challenge them on appeal.

2. Batson Affiliation Strike: The court applied the three‐step Batson framework and Snyder’s clear-error standard. It held that striking Juror 50 for NAACP membership—given the NAACP’s public stance on mandatory minimums—was a permissible, race-neutral basis. No evidence suggested the strike was motivated substantially by race.

3. Jencks Act and Character Evidence: Hamlet initially sought production of new Jencks material but then admitted he already had all prior trial transcripts and witness statements, waiving any claim to additional production. His unchallenged cross-examination on jewelry and social media wealth did not constitute plain error, given the minimal time spent on that topic and the overwhelming independent proof of guilt.

4. Prosecutorial Summation: The court applied Fulton’s plain-error test. It found that the prosecutor’s statement that CSLI “showed” Defendants at key places was a reasonable inference, not a blatant misstatement. The jury instructions and defense closing highlighted CSLI limitations, and the other evidence was strong.

Impact

This decision will guide trial and appellate strategy on several fronts:

Defense counsel must renew Daubert and other evidentiary objections when the evidence or presentation changes in retrial or successive proceedings.
Prosecutors may base peremptory strikes on juror affiliation with advocacy organizations—even if highly correlated with race—so long as the reason is facially neutral and not a pretext for discrimination.
Affirmative “no objection” statements are powerful waivers. Parties should use curative instructions or preserve objections even when evidence seems marginal to the case.
In closing, reasonable inferences from expert or technical evidence rarely count as plain error; strong contrary evidence further insulates verdicts from appellate reversal for misstatements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is an intentional surrender of a right; forfeiture is the failure to make a timely assertion of a right. Waiver bars appellate review; forfeiture allows plain-error review.
Daubert Objection: A challenge to an expert’s qualifications, methods, or basis under Rule 702. If the trial record changes, objections must be re-lodged.
Batson Three-Step Test: (1) Prima facie showing of racial bias, (2) race-neutral explanation, (3) court determines if discrimination occurred. Trial‐court findings on intent are reviewed only for clear error.
Plain-Error Review: Applies to unpreserved claims. Error must be “clear,” affect “substantial rights,” and seriously affect the fairness or integrity of proceedings.
Jencks Act: Requires the government to produce witness statements after they testify, so defendants can impeach prior inconsistent statements.
Rule 404(b): Bars evidence of “other crimes” to show character. Sudden wealth may be admissible if linked directly to the charged offense, but a loose temporal overlap without connection risks prejudice.
CSLI Evidence: Cell-Site Location Information shows which tower a phone pinged, yielding a broad sector—not a pinpoint. It supports—but does not conclusively prove—presence.

Conclusion

United States v. Hamlet, Phillips & Manley crystallizes key principles in appellate practice for complex criminal trials. It underscores that trial objections must be diligently renewed when evidence changes, clarifies that jurors may be struck for advocacy‐group affiliations without Batson violation, and applies a rigorous plain-error standard to misstatements and unobjected evidence. The judgment reaffirms the high deference owed to trial courts on credibility and evidentiary rulings, shaping the tactical calculus of both prosecutors and defense counsel in future cases.