U.S. v. Clarke

• Decision Date: 02 March 2011
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 06–102 (JDB).
• Citation: 84 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1114,767 F.Supp.2d 12
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America,v.Zion CLARKE, Ricardo DeFour, Kevon Demerieux, Anderson Straker, Wayne Pierre, Christopher Sealey, and Kevin Nixon, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

767 F.Supp.2d 12

84 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1114

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Zion CLARKE, Ricardo DeFour, Kevon Demerieux, Anderson Straker, Wayne Pierre, Christopher Sealey, and Kevin Nixon, Defendants.

Criminal No. 06–102 (JDB).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 2, 2011.

Bruce R. Hegyi, Jeanne Marie Hauch, Emily A. Miller, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Christopher Michael Davis, Davis & Davis, A.J. Kramer, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey Brian O'Toole, O'Toole, Rothwell, Nassau & Steinbach, Thomas Abbenante, Thomas Abbenante, Esq., John James Carney, Carney & Carney, Pleasant S. Brodnax, III, Washington, DC, Allen Howard Orenberg, The Orenberg Law Firm, PC, North Bethesda, MD, Michael Edward Lawlor, Lawlor & Englert, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Reita Pendry, Charlotte, NC, Patrick M. Donahue, Donahue Law Firm, Annapolis, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦                   ¦
                +-------------------+
                

Introduction                                                            18
                Background                                                              19
                Standard of Review                                                      24
                Discussion                                                              24
                

I.  Severance                                                           24
                

    A.   General Severance Issues                                       24
                    B.   Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Issues                    29
                

                II. Brady   /Jencks Violations                                          37
                

    A.   The Alleged Brady   /Jencks Violations                         37
                    B.   Summary of Legal Standards                                     39
                    C.   Analysis of the Individual Brady   Violations                  41
                

         1.  Evidence Pertaining to the X-ray of the Victim's Skull     41
                             Russel Joseph's January 17, 2006 Statement to Trinidad
                         2.  Police                                                     43
                         3.  Clauss's Grand Jury Testimony Concerning Ricardo Stevenson 50
                         4.  The False Campsite Testimony and Diagram                   52
                         5.  Cumulative Impact of Late Disclosures                      56
                

                III. Other Due Process Issues                                           59
                

    A.   Limitations on Challenging the Citizenship of Balram Maharaj   59
                         Napue Violations Arising from the False Testimony of
                    B.   Cooperating Witnesses                                          65
                    C.   Trial in U.S. Court for Crimes Occurring in Trinidad           70
                

                IV. Other Evidentiary Issues                                            72
                

    A.   Government Fingerprint Expert Dawn Schilens                    72
                    B.   Dismemberment Evidence                                         74
                

                V.  DeFour's Alibi Defense                                              74
                

    A.   Denial of DeFour's Motion to Continue the Trial; New Evidence  74
                    B.   Denial of Alibi Instruction                                    81
                

                VI. Closing Arguments                                                   84
                

    A.   Vouching                                                       84
                    B.   Prejudicial Reference to Criminal Organization                 87
                    C.   Alternative Theory of Guilt Offered by the Government With     91
                         Respect to Sealey and Nixon
                

                VII. Sufficiency of the Evidence                                        95
                

    A.   Sufficiency of the Evidence—Issues Common to All Defendants    95
                    B.   Sufficiency of the Evidence—Evidence Supporting Each           96
                         Defendant's Convictions
                

         1.  Anderson Straker                                           97
                         2.  Ricardo DeFour                                             98
                         3.  Wayne Pierre                                               99
                         4.  Christopher Sealey                                         101
                         5.  Kevin Nixon                                                101
                         6.  Zion Clarke                                                102
                         7.  Kevon Demerieux                                            103
                

                CONCLUSION                                                              105
                

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from the abduction and death of a U.S. citizen, Balram Maharaj, in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (“Trinidad”) in April 2005. Twelve defendants were extradited from Trinidad to the United States over the course of two years, to face charges of conspiracy to commit hostage taking resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203 (“Hostage Taking Act”), and aiding and abetting hostage taking resulting in death. Seven defendants went to trial in May 2009: Zion Clarke, Ricardo DeFour, Kevon Demerieux, Anderson Straker, Wayne Pierre, Christopher Sealey, and Kevin Nixon.¹

Several rounds of pretrial motions were briefed, including motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress statements, motions to exclude other crimes evidence, motions for severance, and motions concerning the matter of Maharaj's U.S. citizenship. The Court issued five written opinions and an oral opinion from the bench, and also entered a series of orders on other matters as they were presented at trial. See United States v. Straker, 567 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.D.C.2008) (decision on other crimes evidence, Rule 15 depositions, and discovery); United States v. Straker, 596 F.Supp.2d 80 (D.D.C.2009) (decision on legality of extradition and suppression motions filed by Straker and Sealey); United States v. Clarke, 611 F.Supp.2d 12 (D.D.C.2009) (“ Clarke I ”) (decision on admissibility of out-of-court photographic identifications and suppression motions filed by Clarke, DeFour, and Demerieux); United States v. Clarke, 628 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2009) ( “ Clarke II ”) (decision addressing issues related to the U.S. citizenship of the victim); United States v. Clarke, 628 F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C.2009) ( “ Clarke III ”) (second decision addressing issues related to the U.S. citizenship of the victim); Oral Opinion, Preliminary Tr. at 2–24 (May 1, 2009) (denying motions for severance). See also ECF # 454, 509, 519, 568, 602, 603 (orders on issues arising during the course of trial).

Jury selection commenced on May 22, 2009, and the trial of the case began on May 27, 2009. The case was submitted to the jury on July 27, 2009. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as to all seven defendants on both counts of the indictment on July 31, 2009.

Defendants have submitted lengthy post-trial motions arguing that various legal errors require dismissal of the charges against them or, in the alternative, a new trial, and also renewing their earlier motions for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence.² A hearing on the motions was held on April 16, 2010.

BACKGROUND

The indictment charges the defendants with participating in a conspiracy—beginning on or about February 1, 2005, and ending on or about April 15, 2005—to seize and detain Balram Maharaj and his son Dinesh, in order to compel the payment of ransom money for their release, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203. ³ The evidence presented at trial showed that the conspirators' initial plan was to kidnap 5–year old Dinesh, but that the target instead became Balram Maharaj due to complications involved with kidnapping his child. After a series of planning meetings at the Mellow Moods Bar and other locations, the kidnapping took place on April 6, 2005, at the Samaan Tree Bar. Maharaj was taken at gunpoint, forced into a waiting vehicle, and driven to a cocoa field. From there, he was taken to a forested area where he was held for seven days under the watch of two guards. During that time a series of ransom calls was made to the victim's family, demanding $3 million Trinidad dollars—approximately $500,000 U.S. dollars—and the captors attempted to obtain “proof of life” from the victim to advance their ransom demands. During the period of captivity, Maharaj, a diabetic, did not have access to medication, and his health took a precipitous decline—he turned pale, had difficulty speaking and breathing, and began hallucinating. On April 13, 2005, Maharaj died. After his death, several co-conspirators dismembered the body with a machete, hid the body parts in two containers—a blue barrel and a white styrofoam cooler—and buried the containers.

Trinidad police and the FBI both were involved in the investigation. The case went cold after the victim's death on April 13, but by the fall of 2005, the Trinidad police had found sources of information, including Winston Gittens (a cooperating co-defendant), about those involved in the kidnapping. This led to a series of arrests in early 2006, and confessions from five defendants: Clarke, Demerieux, Straker, DeFour, and Sealey.⁴ During that period, there were also arrests of three other defendants—Russel Joseph, Jason Percival, and Leon Nurse—who, like Gittens, eventually pled guilty and entered into cooperation agreements with the U.S. government. Soon after Clarke's arrest, he led the Trinidad police and FBI to a place he identified as the camp site where Maharaj was held, and on January 6, 2006, he then led them to the burial site and showed them where the two containers holding the victim's remains were buried. The FBI recovered the remains, which were positively identified as Maharaj's through dental and other medical records. Although the state of Maharaj's body precluded a conclusive determination of a cause of death, the medical evidence indicated that the likely cause of death was deprivation of his diabetes medications while being held in captivity.

Based largely on the defendants' confessions and the testimony of the cooperators, the evidence presented at trial established the co-conspirators' roles as follows. Anderson...