U.S. v. Holland
| Decision Date | 31 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CRIM. AMD 96-0399.,CRIM. AMD 96-0399. |
| Citation | 59 F.Supp.2d 492 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Dwayne HOLLAND, Daniel Hill, Donnie Montgomery, Duane Carroll, Pirrie Coates, Kevin Jones and James Deberry |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Martin J. Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for U.S.
Cyril V. Smith and Charles G. Bernstein, Baltimore, MD, for Holland.
Harold I. Glaser, Baltimore, MD, for Hill.
Frederick J. Sullivan, Bowie, MD, for Montgomery.
Jane C. Norman, Washington, DC, for Carroll.
Thanos Kanellakos, Baltimore, MD, for Jones.
Donald Feige, Baltimore, MD, for Deberry.
Godwin Oyewole, Washington, DC, for Coates.
The indictment in this case alleged a heroin and crack cocaine ("crack") conspiracy which included among its members defendants Dwayne Holland ("Holland"), Daniel Hill ("Hill"), Donnie Montgomery ("Montgomery"), Duane Carroll ("Carroll"), Kevin Jones ("Jones"), Pirrie Coates ("Coates") and James Deberry ("Deberry"). The indictment alleged that the conspiracy existed from May 1992 until March 1997. The conspiratorial acts allegedly included murder, use of firearms and other acts of violence in connection with illegal drug distribution.
On March 10, 1998, after seven weeks of trial, the jury was asked to render verdicts regarding the following counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute (PWID) and to distribute heroin and crack cocaine against all defendants (count 1);1 PWID crack (count 10) and PWID crack within proximity of a playground and school (count 11) against Holland and Montgomery; distribution of crack (count 7) and distribution of crack within proximity of a school (count 8) against Holland and Hill; distribution of crack against Holland (count 9); and, murder in a drug conspiracy (count 2) and use of a handgun during a drug trafficking crime (count 5) against Holland.2
On March 13, 1998, after several days of deliberations, the jury reached its verdicts. The jury found Holland not guilty of murder in the course of a drug conspiracy and the dependent handgun charge (counts 2 and 5) and not guilty of one distribution of crack charge (count 9). On all the remaining charges, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to all defendants.
The defendants filed timely post-trial motions for judgments of acquittal and new trial, which have been thoroughly briefed. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, 33. Presentence investigation reports ("PSR") have been completed by the probation office, and I have held a consolidated motions hearing and sentencing hearing during which counsel have been heard on all relevant issues. Furthermore, counsel have briefed and have been heard in connection with an alleged Giglio3 violation which came to light after trial.
In Parts II, III and IV of this opinion, I will address the issues presented in the post-trial filings and elaborate on my pre-trial and trial rulings regarding whether and to what extent the government made improper use of information obtained as a result of the interrogations of Holland and Montgomery on October 24, 1996, in conceded violation of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel, other alleged Sixth Amendment violations and my denial of defendant Coates's renewed request for a severance. In Part V, I shall explain my resolution of certain sentencing guidelines issues, including drug quantity, role in the offense, the murder cross reference, firearm possession, obstruction of justice, career offender status and minimal participation. For the reasons set forth here and on the record at the hearing, all requests for post-trial relief are denied. Individual sentencing hearings for each defendant have been calendared, and shall proceed on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth below.
Holland's involvement with law enforcement related to this case began in 1993. On February 7, 1993, Antonio Woodson ("Woodson") was shot and killed in the Westport Housing Project ("Westport"), the location of the defendants' drug trafficking activity as alleged in the indictment and proven at trial. In July 1993, Holland was arrested and charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with Woodson's murder. Holland retained counsel. The charge was "nolle prossed" by the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office in November 1993 for lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute.4
Thereafter, in June 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation commenced an investigation of Holland. As part of the federal investigation, agents outfitted informant Mannix White ("White") with a body wire and White obtained two tape recordings, on October 12 and October 14, 1994, which captured Holland and others discussing their drug activities. The purpose of these taped conversations was described by the FBI agent who handled White in connection with the October incidents as follows: "Cooperating Witness `L Cool White is going to speak to several members of the Holland drug group ......
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USA. v. Montgomery
...two comprehensive published opinions in which he carefully considered, and rejected, most of these contentions. See United States v. Holland, 59 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 1998); United States v. Holland , 985 F. Supp. (D. Md. 1997). Nonetheless, these arguments are reiterated at length on app......
-
State v. Robert L. Wyche
... ... accused. See Riggs v. Yukins (2001), E.D. Mich. Case ... No 00-CV-70134-DT, unreported; quoting United States v ... Holland (D.Md. 1998), 59 F.Supp. 2d 492, 504, affirmed ... by Montgomery , supra ... The record in this ... case does not support a conclusion that the ... Accordingly, ... appellant's first assignment of error is overruled ... By his ... second assignment of error, appellant asks us to reverse the ... convictions on the additional grounds that they were not ... supported by sufficient evidence as a matter of law and that ... ...
-
U.S. v. Leonard
...conspiracy's aim as protecting the “ ‘big family’ ” that worked together in a multi-drug distribution business); United States v. Holland, 59 F.Supp.2d 492, 531 (D.Md.1998) (defining the conspiratorial goal as distributing to consumers “ ‘Holland's drugs' ”). A participant's knowledge of an......
-
State Of Tenn. v. Bryant
...school. See id. at 441; see also United States v. Singletary, 69 Fed. Appx. 468, 468-69 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. Holland, 59 F. Supp. 2d 492, 519 (D. Md. 1998). In sum, neither the plain language of our Act nor our case law requires the proof urged by the defendant. Here, Stephens......