United States v. Rosemond

Decision Date01 November 2016
Docket NumberAugust Term 2015,Docket No. 15-940-cr
Citation841 F.3d 95
Parties United States of America, Appellee, v. James J. Rosemond, Defendant–Appellant, Derek Andre English, Ronald Anderson, Brian McCleod, AKA Slim, AKA Brian Connelly, AKA Joseph King, AKA Brian Conley, AKA John A. Conley, Shawn Williams, AKA William Shawn, Jason Williams, Derrick Grant, Rodney Johnson, AKA Rodney T. Hibbert, AKA Toree Johnson, Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Samson Enzer , Assistant United States Attorney (Elizabeth Hanft, Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

Michael Rayfield (Scott Chesin, on the brief), Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, and Jonathan I. Edelstein, Edelstein & Grossman, New York, NY, for DefendantAppellant.

Before: Kearse, Cabranes, and Chin, Circuit Judges.

Chin

, Circuit Judge:

DefendantAppellant James J. Rosemond appeals a March 25, 2015 judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, C.J. ), following a jury trial, convicting him of murder for hire, conspiracy to commit murder for hire, murder through use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1958

, 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and 924(j). Rosemond was the head of Czar Entertainment, a music label that engaged in a lengthy and violent feud with a rival company, Violator Records, and its rap group, G–Unit. The feud culminated in the fatal shooting of a G–Unit associate, Lowell Fletcher.

Following his arrest for narcotics-related charges, Rosemond participated in proffer sessions with the Government in hopes of reaching a cooperation agreement. Rosemond and the Government signed a proffer agreement that prohibited the Government from using Rosemond's statements against him, except to rebut factual assertions made by him or on his behalf at a later proceeding. During one such proffer session, law enforcement officers asked Rosemond if he knew that his and his associates' actions in September 2009 would lead to Fletcher's death. Rosemond responded that he knew Fletcher would die.

At Rosemond's first trial for his role in Fletcher's murder, the district court ruled that any argument by defense counsel that the Government had failed to prove that Rosemond had intended to murder—as opposed to merely shoot—would open the door to admitting his proffer statement. The first trial resulted in a mistrial, and at the second trial the district court adhered to its prior rulings as to the proffer statements. As a consequence, Rosemond limited his defense. He was convicted on all counts.

On appeal, Rosemond contends that 1) the district court erred in ruling that certain defense arguments would open the door to the admission of statements made during a proffer session; 2) the district court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We conclude that the district court erred in unduly restricting Rosemond's ability to defend against the charges, and that such error was not harmless. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.

BACKGROUND
I. The Facts

Because Rosemond appeals his convictions following a jury trial, “our statement of the facts views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, crediting any inferences that the jury might have drawn in its favor.” United States v. Dhinsa , 243 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir. 2001)

(quoting United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). At trial, the Government elicited testimony from three cooperating witnesses—Khalil Abdullah, Mohammed Stewart, and Brian McCleod—about the violent hip hop feud between Czar Entertainment and G–Unit and the events leading up to Fletcher's death.

A. The Feud

Rosemond was the owner of Czar Entertainment, a music business that represented and managed various hip hop and rap musicians, including rap artist Jayceon Taylor. Czar had a longstanding and violent rivalry with Violator Records and its rap group, G–Unit, featuring Curtis Jackson, Marvin Bernard, and Lloyd Banks. The dispute arose in part after Jackson publicly insulted Taylor on Hot 97, a New York hip hop radio station, in February 2005. After hearing what was said on the radio, Rosemond told his associate, Mohammed Stewart, to accompany Taylor to Hot 97 to “make sure nothing happen[ed] to him.” App. 309. When Taylor arrived at Hot 97, someone started shooting into the crowd outside the radio station. Taylor's friend was shot in the leg. Later that day, Stewart had another Czar associate shoot up the front door of Violator Records. Rosemond paid Stewart $2,000 for that shooting.

Rosemond had another altercation with G–Unit in December 2006 at an award ceremony at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. Marvin Bernard of G–Unit confronted Rosemond at the event about Taylor “talking reckless” about G–Unit frontman, Curtis Jackson. App. 258. In anticipation of a shooting, Rosemond left through a side exit with his associates, including Khalil Abdullah. After they left the Apollo, Rosemond and Abdullah followed Bernard's car and shot fifty rounds into it when it pulled over. Following the Apollo incident, a meeting was organized by music industry mogul, Sean Combs, between Rosemond and G–Unit's manager, Christopher Lighty, to make peace between the groups. The meeting got heated and resulted in Rosemond getting “mushed in the face” by Lighty. App. 260. Rather than quell the feud, the meeting only increased tensions between the groups.

B. Assault of Rosemond's Son and Subsequent Retaliation

On March 20, 2007, three G–Unit associates—Marvin Bernard, Jaleel Walter, and Lowell Fletcher—were leaving Violator's office when they saw a 14 year-old boy wearing a sweatshirt bearing the Czar Entertainment logo. They confronted him, pushed him up against a wall, slapped him, and threatened him with a gun. A parking attendant at the garage across the street saw what was happening and yelled at them to break it up. The G–Unit associates got into a black Suburban and drove away.

The boy was Rosemond's son. When Rosemond found out about the incident later that day, he was furious and immediately sent Stewart to cut a G–Unit associate with a razorblade. Stewart testified that Rosemond was so disturbed by the attack on his son that he sought to retaliate in “three ways”: “through the law, through music and through streets.” App. 315.

Rosemond first sought out assistance from law enforcement. Rosemond's son reported the incident to the police and identified Fletcher and Bernard as his attackers. Criminal charges were brought against them both. Fletcher eventually pled guilty to assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and began serving a term of imprisonment in Mohawk Correctional Facility. Next, on the musical front, Rosemond organized conferences with hip hop figures to “talk about the guns and violence in hip-hop.” App. 315. Taylor also wrote a song about the feud.

The real retaliation, however, was achieved through “violence in the streets” where [t]he objective was to shoot somebody.” App. 315. Violence between the two gangs began to ratchet up. A month after the slapping incident, in April 2007, Rosemond claimed to have shot thirty rounds into Bernard's mother's house in Queens. Over the next couple of years, he and his associates continued to target G–Unit members. For instance, Stewart threw Molotov cocktails at and shot rounds into G–Unit associate Walter's house and car in Staten Island, and another Czar associate was paid $5,000 for having a G–Unit jeep torched in New Jersey. There were various unsuccessful attempts to shoot Bernard, Walter, Lighty, and their homes, cars, and family members by Rosemond, Stewart, and other Czar associates. At one point, after spotting G–Unit members enter a van, Rosemond “tried to make it a coffin” by shooting it up. App. 320.

Stewart testified to statements made by Rosemond during this time, including “something like they're not going to understand what it is until they're carrying a coffin.” App. 315.

C. The Fletcher Murder

Meanwhile, Fletcher—one of the assailants of Rosemond's son—was serving his state sentence at Mohawk Correctional Facility, where his presence came to the attention of another inmate, Brian McCleod. Unbeknownst to Fletcher, McCleod was a friend of Rosemond. McCleod and Rosemond had spent time in jail together in the late 1990s and worked together in the music and drug business after they were released. McCleod had been serving a New York state prison term for possession of cocaine he removed from a stash house at Rosemond's behest in 2004.

On August 10, 2009, McCleod was released on parole. Shortly thereafter, he met with Rosemond and told him that he “had a line on [i.e. , had access to] ... the individual [who] slapped [Rosemond's] son,” referring to Fletcher. App. 480. In response, Rosemond said that “since his son had been assaulted, he hadn't been able to sleep,” and that he had been “hitting them everywhere they turn,” including shooting their cars in front of the Apollo, blowing up their cars in South Beach, and shooting their homes. App. 481. Rosemond told McCleod that he wished he had known where Fletcher was incarcerated earlier, as he would have paid $10,000 “for anybody who would have marked him, who would have scarred him,” meaning [t]hat he would have paid someone [that amount] to cut” Fletcher. App. 482.

Rosemond met McCleod a week later and told him that he would pay $30,000 to anyone who “could bring [Fletcher to] him.” App. 485. Rosemond said he would “hit him so fast and so hard, he's not even going to realize it's coming.” App. 486. He “was talking about shooting” Fletcher. Id. McCleod suggested involving Derrick Grant, a trusted associate. Rosemond agreed. The next day, McCleod went to see Grant and told him that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Lasher v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 20, 2018
    ...elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Dupree, 870 F.3d 62, 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95, 113 (2d Cir. 2016)). This insufficiency argument previously formed one of Lasher's primary bases for relief on direct appeal, and it wa......
  • United States v. Napout
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 22, 2020
    ...light most favorable to the government, crediting any inferences that the jury might have drawn in its favor.’ " United States v. Rosemond , 841 F.3d 95, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). But we note that in the introduction to his brief on this appeal, appellant Napou......
  • United States v. Aiyer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 2, 2022
    ...the jury might have drawn in its favor." United States v. Percoco , 13 F.4th 158, 164 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Rosemond , 841 F.3d 95, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2016) ).2 There are numerous ways in which FX market participants can trade. However, the "basic trade" in the FX market......
  • United States v. Grote
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 2, 2020
    ...the objection, the failure to renew the objection as specified in Rule 30(d) does not forfeit de novo review. See United States v. Rosemond , 841 F.3d 95, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2016) (a defendant's failure to renew an objection will not forfeit de novo review if "taking further exception under th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...trial error subject to harmless error review when admission of evidence obtained in violation of 4th Amendment); U.S. v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2016) (constitutional trial error subject to harmless error review where preclusion of defense’s cross-examination and argument); U......

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