U.S. v. Bannister
| Decision Date | 08 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–CR–0053.,10–CR–0053. |
| Citation | 786 F.Supp.2d 617 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of Americav.Damien BANNISTER, Darrell Bannister, Christopher Hall, Cyril McCray, Eric Morris, Roger Patrick, James Ross, Derrick Tatum, Indio Tatum, Jawara Tatum, and Pedro Torres, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, by Daniel S. Silver and Seth David DuCharme.Joel Cohen, New York, N.Y., for defendant Damien Bannister.Jeremy L. Gutman, New York, N.Y., for defendant Darrell Bannister.Robert L. Moore, Quesada & Moore, LLP, West Hempstead, N.Y., for defendant Christopher Hall.John S. Wallenstein, Garden City, N.Y., for defendant Cyril McCray.Michael H. Soroka, Mineola, N.Y., for defendant Roger Patrick.Erika McDaniel Edwards, Donaldson, Chilliest & McDaniel, LLP, New York, N.Y., for defendant Derrick Tatum.Heidi C. Cesare, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant Jawara Tatum.Margaret M. Shalley, Fasulo, Shalley & DiMaggio, LLP, New York, N.Y., for defendant Pedro Torres.
Amended Statement of Reasons Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2)
Introduction
Almost filling the jury box were the defendants—Damien Bannister, Darrell Bannister, Christopher Hall, Cyril McCray, Eric Morris, Roger Patrick, James Ross, Derrick Tatum, Indio Tatum, Jawara Tatum, and Pedro Torres—eleven males, ranging in age from twenty-one to forty-nine, ten African American and one Hispanic. Fully occupying the well of the court were counsel for the defendants, assistant United States attorneys, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a phalanx of United States Marshals. Jammed into the gallery were defendants' anxious mothers, girlfriends, other family members, and friends.
The indictment embraced twenty-three counts connected by a conspiracy to sell, and the selling of, crack cocaine and heroin in the hallways of, and the streets surrounding, a public housing project in Brooklyn between September 2007 and January 2010. Guns were carried. The lives of the residents were made miserable by the attendant depravity and violence. These were serious crimes.
The unspoken questions permeating the courtroom were: How did these eleven come to this pass, and what should be done with them if they were convicted, as all of them eventually were, by guilty pleas? Some of the unsatisfactory answers in such all-too-frequent urban tragedies are discussed in the memorandum that follows.
The issue of what should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. United States
...itself has reported that the crack/powder disparity produces disproportionately harsh sanctions."); United States v. Bannister , 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 648 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Overwhelming data, analyses, and judicial findings support the conclusion of a disparate racial impact in the mandatory......
-
Wright v. United States
...harsh sanctions."), and which was executed in ways that have been described as racially biased, United States v. Bannister , 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 648 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Overwhelming data, analyses, and judicial findings support the conclusion of a disparate racial impact in the mandatory min......
-
Wright v. United States
...harsh sanctions."), and which was executed in ways that have been described as racially biased, United States v. Bannister , 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 648 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Overwhelming data, analyses, and judicial findings support the conclusion of a disparate racial impact in the mandatory min......
-
United States v. Jones
...occasions, justified the sentence imposed.Jones cites the thorough opinion by the late Judge Weinstein in United States v. Bannister , 786 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), which reviewed broad issues of race, poverty, and history shaping the criminal justice system, federal sentencing law, ......
-
Sacrificing Secrecy
...(quoting Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290 (7th Cir. 1977))); United States v. Bannister, 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 665 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("The task of recognizing [discriminatory] intent is made particularly difficult by 'the growing unacceptability of ove......