Baskerville v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 November 2018
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 13-5881 (PGS)
• Parties: WILLIAM BASKERVILLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

WILLIAM BASKERVILLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Civ. No. 13-5881 (PGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 15, 2018

OPINION

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, William Baskerville, has filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, the majority of petitioner's § 2255 claims will be denied. However, a few of petitioner's claims will require an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, this Court will reserve judgment on one of petitioner's claims until after the evidentiary hearing. Finally, this Court will order respondent to file a response to one of petitioner's motions to expand the record.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In early 2003, petitioner became a target of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("F.B.I.") for his involvement in distributing drugs. (See Crim. No. 03-836 ECF 190 Trial Tr. ("T.T.") at p.3473-74)¹ Deshawn "Kemo" McCray was a paid informant for the F.B.I. (See T.T. at p.3396-97) In January, 2003, McCray began purchasing crack cocaine from Terrell Thomas. (See id. at p.3475-78) Thereafter, Thomas introduced McCray to petitioner. McCray was then advised thathe could call petitioner directly on his cell phone if he wanted to purchase drugs. (See id. at p.3478) Subsequently, and throughout the course of 2003, McCray made several drug purchases from petitioner.

Petitioner was part of a larger drug organization at the time of McCray's drug purchases from him. Hakeem Curry was the "top guy" of this organization. (See T.T. at p.4355) Petitioner was below Curry by a few levels in the organization's hierarchy. (See id. at p.4356) Below petitioner was Anthony Young, Jamal McNeil and Jamal Baskerville. (See id. at p.4357) Below Young, McNeil and Jamal Baskerville were street-level dealers. (See id.)

Ultimately, petitioner was arrested on November 25, 2003. (See T.T. at p.3761-62) Paul Bergrin represented petitioner at his initial appearance on the day of his arrest. (See id. p.3836) While petitioner was being detained during the period following his arrest, petitioner communicated to Richard Hosten, another person who had sold drugs to McCray. Hosten had been arrested and had an initial appearance the same day as petitioner. Thereafter, when Hosten and petitioner were back at the Hudson County Jail, Hosten heard petitioner mention the name of Kemo to whomever he was speaking to on the telephone. (See id. at p.4286) Thereafter, petitioner again told Hosten that Kemo was probably the reason that they were in jail. (See id. at p.4277-78)

After petitioner's initial appearance on November 25, 2003, Bergrin and Curry spoke by phone. At that time, Bergrin told Curry that the name of the confidential informant against petitioner was "K-Mo." (See id. at p.4352) Young, who was present with Curry at the time of this call between Curry and Bergrin, came to the conclusion that the informant was "Kemo" and not "K-Mo" as stated by Bergrin, because Curry had repeated the name "K-Mo" after Bergin told him it over the phone. (See id. at p.4352)

Several days after petitioner's arrest, a meeting among various associates of the Curry drug organization took place at Jamal Baskerville's house. (See T.T. p.4359) Curry, Rakeem Baskerville, Jamal Baskerville, McNeil, Young and Bergrin were present. (See id.) At this meeting, Bergrin told the group that petitioner would not get bail and that petitioner was facing life imprisonment. (See id. at p.4360) However, Bergrin told the group that if Kemo was not around to testify against petitioner, then there was no case, stating, "no Kemo, no case." (See id. p.4361)

After Bergrin left, the group remaining then discussed how to find Kemo McCray so that he would not testify against petitioner. (See id. at p.4362) Curry and Rakeem Baskerville agreed to pay $15,000 to either Young or McNeil to kill Kemo McCray. (See id. at p.4363)

From November, 2003 to March, 2004, Jamal McNeil visited petitioner in jail from time to time. (See id. at p.4376) During these meetings, petitioner told McNeil that Kemo McCray needed to be killed quick or else he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison. (See id. at p.4376)

On March 2, 2004, McCray was discovered by the Curry drug organization. (See id. p.4380) At that time, Curry instructed Young to kill McCray since Young had already been given $7500 to complete the murder. (See id. at p.4382) Curry gave Young a gun to kill McCray. (See id. at p.4383)

Ultimately, Young and Rakeem Baskerville found McCray in Newark, New Jersey. As McCray was walking with his stepfather, Ronnie Davis, Young approached McCray, then shot and killed McCray. (See id. at p.4399-4400)

After McCray had been shot and killed, the F.B.I. visited petitioner in prison to question him about McCray's murder. (See id. at p.4753) Petitioner became upset after one of these visits. (See id.)

Petitioner had had discussions with other inmates about McCray both before and after McCray's murder. Indeed, Troy Bell, another prisoner, stated that petitioner told him at one point that, "all I know, my informant could be dead. He said, my dudes is looking for him to put a bullet in his melon, but they can't find him." (See id. at p.5060) Bell also stated that petitioner told him he knew who his informant was, that he told this information to his brother Rakeem Baskerville, and that he told him to "handle it." (See id. at p.5067) Eric Dock, another prisoner, similarly stated that petitioner told him that his brother was out there looking for his informant and that they were "trying to put a hole in his melon." (See id. at p.5263) Subsequent to McCray's murder, petitioner told one of his fellow prisoners, Eddie Williams, that he would have been a fool to tell the F.B.I. he had the murder done, even though he did. (See id. at p.4753)

In January, 2005, Young came to the F.B.I. to explain that he was involved in the murder of McCray. (See T.T. at p.3871) Young knew facts about the murder such as the positioning of McCray's body after he was killed, and that McCray also had a cigarette and a dust mask. (See id. at p.3891) Ultimately, Young pled guilty to murdering a witness. Under a cooperating agreement, Young agreed to testify truthfully for the government. (See id. at p.4596)

On June 29, 2006, a Fourth Superseding Indictment was returned against petitioner. (See Crim. No. 03-836 ECF 82) Petitioner was charged with several counts of drug offenses as well as two counts related to the murder of McCray; namely conspiracy to murder a witness and conspiracy to retaliate against an informant.

In 2007, petitioner went on trial before now retired District Judge Joel A. Pisano.

During jury selection, the District Court and parties settled on a venire of fifty-two potential jurors. The prosecution exercised peremptory challenges to strike four of the five African American venirepersons. The defense objected, claiming that the prosecutors impermissibly used peremptory challenges to prevent African Americans from being seated on the jury. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (holding that the use of peremptory challenges on account of race violates the Equal Protection Clause). In response, the prosecution volunteered explanations for its use of peremptory challenges principally focused on the stricken jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty and relation to convicted criminals. Defense counsel did nothing to challenge the proffered explanations and the District Court overruled defense counsel's objection, finding that the prosecution's reasons were race-neutral, credible, and not pretextual.

Prior to trial, the prosecution filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce statements made by McCray while alive, pursuant to the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the ban on hearsay set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 804(b)(6). Rather than hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the exception's elements were met, as defense counsel requested, the District Court reviewed the prosecution's extensive proffer of evidence connecting [William] Baskerville to McCray's murder. The District Court then indicated that it would admit the statements subject to the prosecution's making of the necessary connection at trial. Shortly before the end of trial, the District Court ruled definitively that the prosecution had made the necessary showing to admit McCray's statements under FRE 804(b)(6).

The District Court so ruled based upon evidence that the prosecution introduced in support of the charges against [William] Baskerville related to McCray's murder. That evidence consisted primarily of testimony by the gunman, Anthony Young, who testified that Baskerville had Bergrin transmit McCray's identity as an informant to several associates and told one associate to act quickly in killing McCray or else [William] Baskerville would lose the case. Young understood [William] Baskerville to have instructed the group to kill McCray. [William] Baskerville's cellmate corroborated Young's understanding with testimony that [William] Baskerville admitted lying to F.B.I. agents when he denied having McCray killed.

United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 245-56 (3d Cir. 2011).

One of the witnesses who testified at petitioner's trial was F.B.I. Special Agent Shawn Manson.² Manson testified for several days at petitioner's trial. Her testimony included her interactions with McCray as well as evidence McCray provided the government as an informant and purchaser of drugs from petitioner. Another witness for the government was Anthony Young. Young's testimony included phone calls between Bergrin and Curry on the day petitioner was arrested, a meeting between Bergrin and members of the drug organization after petitioner was arrested, his subsequent killing of McCray, and what he did after the killing.

After weeks of testimony, peti...