United States v. Dinkins

Decision Date14 August 2012
Docket Number09–4755.,Nos. 09–4668,09–4669,s. 09–4668
Citation691 F.3d 358
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. James DINKINS, a/k/a Miami, Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Melvin Gilbert, Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Darron Goods, a/k/a Moo Man, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED:Gary Proctor, Law Offices of Gary E. Proctor, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Jonathan Paul Van Hoven, Baltimore, Maryland; C. Justin Brown, Law Office of C. Justin Brown, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Joan Mathias, Law Clerk, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge KEENAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD and Judge FLOYD joined.

OPINION

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we review the convictions of three defendants who were tried together on charges relating to the murder of certain government witnesses, the murder of a coconspirator, and numerous other narcotics and firearms-related offenses arising from the defendants' involvement in a drug-trafficking organization in Baltimore. Among the several issues presented, we consider the primary issues of: (1) the district court's decision to empanel an “anonymous jury,” in which biographical information about prospective jurors was withheld from the parties and their counsel; and (2) the admissibility of hearsay statements of a murdered government witness under the “forfeiture-by-wrongdoing” exception to the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining juror anonymity, and that the challenged hearsay statements were admissible based on the defendants' conduct leading to the witness' death. Upon our review of these primary issues, and the remaining issues presented, we affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

We begin by setting forth the general factual background of the case, based on the evidence presented at trial. Additional relevant facts are included in later sections of this opinion as necessary for our consideration of the issues raised on appeal.

In 2003, the Baltimore City Police Department conducted an investigation of a local organization commonly known as “Special,” whose members were suspected of distributing large amounts of narcotics in the Bartlett neighborhood of Baltimore.1The investigation revealed that members of Special regularly distributed heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, and committed numerous acts of violence in furtherance of their narcotics activities. One member of Special stated that each day he sold tens of thousands of dollars of heroin and cocaine.

Melvin Gilbert was the “leader” of Special, who received and controlled the proceeds derived from Special's narcotics operation. James Dinkins was a member of Special who served as an “enforcer,” committing murders “for hire.” Darron Goods, also a member of Special, sold drugs for the organization. These three men are the defendants in this case.

Gilbert had several “lieutenants” who helped him conduct Special's operations, including Tracy Love, Tamall Parker, and Randy McLean. Additionally, several other individuals were members of Special, or otherwise “worked with” the group, including Michael Bryant, Damien West, John Dowery (Dowery), Dowery's son Cecil Dowery, and Cornell Booker.

Based on months of surveillance and investigation, the police learned that Gilbert planned to arrive in the Bartlett neighborhood on October 16, 2003, with a large amount of narcotics. In anticipation of this delivery, the police obtained search warrants for three houses located on Bartlett Avenue that were suspected of containing narcotics. Gilbert's grandmother owned one of these houses.

On October 16, 2003, the officers saw Gilbert drive into the neighborhood and park his car in front of his grandmother's house. He was observed carrying a grey bag into one of the other two houses before he returned outside, met with several individuals, and pointed them toward the house he had entered. Past police surveillance had indicated that narcotics were kept in that house. One of the individuals with whom Gilbert spoke entered the house, brought out a package, and engaged in hand-to-hand movements that were indicative of a drug transaction. At that time, several officers emerged from covert locations and arrested the various suspects, including Gilbert and McLean. Dinkins and Goods were not among the individuals arrested at that time.

The officers proceeded to execute the search warrants for the three houses. Upon searching the houses, the officers seized about 800 vials of white powder that tested positive for cocaine, 700 capsules of powder that tested positive for heroin, a quantity of marijuana, several firearms including a 9mm machine pistol and a .357 magnum revolver, boxes of ammunition, and thousands of dollars in United States currency.

The grey bag that Gilbert was observed carrying into one of the houses contained 525 capsules of heroin. While no narcotics or guns were found in Gilbert's grandmother's house, on Gilbert's person, or in his automobile, the authorities seized over $700 in currency in an envelope found in Gilbert's grandmother's house.

After his arrest in October 2003, Gilbert remained incarcerated until July 2005. Shortly after he was released, Gilbert was introduced to Frank Batts, the leader of “24/7,” another large drug organization operating in Baltimore. Over the next year, Batts purchased “wholesale” quantities of heroin from Gilbert and other members of Special on about fifteen occasions, in amounts that ranged between one-fifth of a kilogram and one-half of a kilogram.

On one occasion, Gilbert told Batts that Shannon Jemmison, an individual who lived in the neighborhood where 24/7 operated, was a government informant, or a “snitch.” It was widely believed that Jemmison had cooperated with law enforcement officers regarding the operations of yet another large drug organization, led by the “Rice Brothers.”

Batts knew that Gilbert did not “like” snitches, and Gilbert earlier had told him “about a snitch that he was trying to get.” After Gilbert asked whether Batts would “want to get” Jemmison, Batts responded affirmatively. Gilbert later introduced Batts to Dinkins, who agreed to kill Jemmison in exchange for several thousand dollars. Gilbert consented to bearing the initial cost of paying Dinkins, subject to Batts' agreement to reimburse Gilbert in their next drug transaction.

On September 10, 2005, Batts drove Dinkins to a trailer where Jemmison was playing cards. At that location, Dinkins shot Jemmison several times at point-blank range, killing him. After Batts heard the shots, he moved to a designated location where he met Dinkins and drove him to another neighborhood. That evening, Batts paid Dinkins $4,000, which was about half his “fee” for killing Jemmison.2

In October 2004, James Wise, a drug dealer not affiliated with Special, was murdered on a street corner during daylight hours after he had robbed a member of Special. John Dowery, a drug dealer who sold drugs as a member of Special, was a witness to the murder.

Dowery contacted certain law enforcement officers and provided them information about the Wise murder. Dowery also began sharing with the officers information concerning other investigations in the Bartlett neighborhood, including information about the organizational structure and operations of Special. Parker and Love, who were both “high-ranking” members of Special, were arrested after Dowery provided incriminating information concerning them. After their arrest, Dowery became widely known as a “snitch.”

Before Dowery could testify at the upcoming state murder trial of Parker and Love, on October 19, 2005, Dinkins told West, another drug dealer who was a member of Special, that they had been “nominated to kill” Dowery. That day, Dinkins and West arrived at Dowery's house and waited outside for him to return from work. When Dowery arrived, Dinkins and West fired more than a dozen shots at Dowery, striking him multiple times. After Dinkins later learned that Dowery did not die from his injuries, Dinkins stated to West: We have to go to the hospital to finish him off.” 3

Dowery eventually recovered from his gunshot wounds. He spoke with detectives after the shooting, and identified Dinkins from a photo array as the individual who had shot him.4

Michael Bryant, a member of Special, had given Dinkins the name of an individual who agreed to provide new firearms in exchange for the guns used to shoot Dowery. On November 10, 2005, Dinkins, West, and Bryant met to complete this transaction. After problems arose that prevented them from completing this transaction, Dinkins shot Bryant, killing him.

Love offered an additional explanation at trial for Dinkins' decision to kill Bryant, a co-conspirator and fellow member of Special. According to Love, Bryant was upset that Dinkins had attempted to kill Dowery, because Bryant thought this attempt would cause more “trouble” for Love and Parker at their upcoming trial. Love testified that Dinkins murdered Bryant because of Bryant's “fussing” about the attempt on Dowery's life. Love stated that Dinkins “lure[d] [Bryant] out of the house and they drove to [ ] a dark area,” where Dinkins “pistol-whipped” Bryant in the head, and then shot Bryant twice. Dinkins was arrested on December 9, 2005, and has remained incarcerated since that date.

In January 2006, Dowery testified in the state trial of Parker and Love. 5 After the attempt on Dowery's life in October 2005, measures were taken to protect him as a witness, and he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • State v. Jako
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 2, 2021
    ..."when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying") (emphasis in original); United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358, 383 (4th Cir. 2012) ("Before applying the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, a trial court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence......
  • United States v. Hager
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 20, 2013
    ...“[A] district court's decision whether to empanel an anonymous jury is reviewable for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 371 (4th Cir.2012). In capital cases, an anonymous jury is allowed under very limited circumstances: A person charged with treason or other cap......
  • United States v. Lighty
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 12, 2016
    ...it is unnecessary to determine whether the defendant has actually demonstrated a prima facie case. See, e.g., United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 380 n.17 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. McMillon, 14 F.3d 948, 952 (4th Cir. 1994); cf. Davis v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 160 F.3d 1023,......
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 28, 2020
    ...wrongdoing doctrine applied to all who had ‘acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant's unavailability.’ "); United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358, 386 (4th Cir. 2012) ("We conclude that the district court properly admitted the ... hearsay statements against [the defendant who did no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...drug operation and exacting revenge for robbing one of defendant’s cohorts. HEARSAY §624.9 HEARSAY 6-32 United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012). The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception permitted introduction of the victim’s hearsay declarations, even though defendant was in p......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...victim from harming the defendant’s drug operation and exacting revenge for robbing one of defendant’s cohorts. United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012). The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception permitted introduction of the victim’s hearsay declarations, even though defendant ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2015 Contents
    • July 31, 2015
    ...victim from harming the defendant’s drug operation and exacting revenge for robbing one of defendant’s cohorts. United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012). The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception permitted introduction of the victim’s hearsay declarations, even though defendant ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...victim from harming the defendant’s drug operation and exacting revenge for robbing one of defendant’s cohorts. United States v. Dinkins , 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012). The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception permitted introduction of the victim’s hearsay declarations, even though defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT