U.S. v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 06 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. 04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2).,04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2).
• Citation: 596 F.Supp.2d 661
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Rodney Arnoldo MORRISON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

596 F.Supp.2d 661

UNITED STATES of America, v. Rodney Arnoldo MORRISON, Defendant.

No. 04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

February 6, 2009.

As Amended February 26, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY, by James M. Miskiewicz, A.U.S.A., John Joseph Durham, A.U.S.A., Diane C. Leonardo-Beckman, A.U.S.A., for the Government.

William H. Murphy, Jr. & Associates, Baltimore, MD, by William H. Murphy, Jr., Esq., Kenneth W. Ravenell, Esq., Law Offices of Peter Smith & Associates, Northport, NY, by Peter Smith, Esq., Daniel Nobel, Esq., New York, NY, Levitt & Kaizer, Esqs., New York, NY, by Richard Levitt, Esq., for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                BACKGROUND.............................................................................668
                  I.   The Indictment..................................................................668
                 II.   Racketeering Acts Four through Eighty—Contraband Cigarettes...............669
                III. New York Tax Law .................................................................669
                IV. Racketeering Acts Four through Eighty Charged Morrison with Violations of
                      the CCTA Under Both 18 U.S.C. § 2342(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2..............670
                V.  The "Forbearance Policy"...........................................................670
                VI.  Defendant's Pre-Trial Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Acts Four through
                       Eighty is Denied ...............................................................672
                VII.  The Verdict .....................................................................672
                VIII. The Instant Motion...............................................................672
                DISCUSSION ............................................................................672
                   I.  Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two (RICO Conspiracy) is Denied ............672
                       A. The Absence of Regulations Under New York Tax Law § 471 Does not
                            Preclude Prosecution Under the CCTA .......................................673
                          1. The Court Will Address Defendant's Argument Concerning the
                               Regulations Even Though it was Previously Addressed by the
                               Court ..................................................................673
                          2. The CCTA and the New York Tax Law ........................................674
                          3. The Day Wholesale Case ...................................................676
                          4. Defendant's Reliance on Day Wholesale is Misplaced .......................677
                          5. The Milhelm Attea Case ...................................................680
                             a. Milhelm Attea .........................................................680
                             b. Defendant's Argument ..................................................682
                          6. Conclusions as to Defendant's Regulatory Arguments .......................683
                        B. Change in Theory ...........................................................683
                           1. Racketeering Acts Five Through Eighty ...................................683
                           2. During its Case-in-Chief, the Government Confined its Theory of
                               Prosecution Regarding the CCTA Racketeering Acts to 18 U.S.C
                               § 2 and Off-Reservation Sales .....................................684
                

                           3. The Court Dismisses the CCTA Racketeering Acts as to Count One ..........685
                           4. The Court Reserves Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
                               CCTA Racketeering Acts as to Count Two .................................686
                           5. The Parties' Arguments ..................................................687
                           6. No Prejudice to Defendant Shown From Government's Change in
                               Theory, and Overwhelming Evidence Supports Jury's Verdict as
                               to Count Two ...........................................................687
                        C. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two on Substantive Due Process
                             Grounds is Denied ........................................................694
                           1. Procedural Posture for Motion ...........................................694
                           2. Applicable Standards ....................................................695
                           3. Fair Notice .............................................................695
                              a. Standard of Review ...................................................695
                              b. The Court's November 9, 2007 Decision ................................695
                              c. Defendant's Arguments as to the Changed Landscape do not
                                    Alter the Court's Previous Conclusion that Morrison was not
                                    Deprived of Substantive Due Process ...............................696
                           4. Arbitrary Enforcement ...................................................701
                              a. Applicable Law .......................................................701
                              b. The CCTA Provides Sufficiently Clear Standards .......................702
                              c. Lack of Scienter .....................................................705
                           5. Conclusion as to Defendant's Substantive Due Process Claim ..............706
                  II. Defendant's Motion for a New Trial as to Count Two (RICO Conspiracy) is
                         Denied .......................................................................706
                      A. Defendant's Application for a New Trial Based Upon the Court's
                           Response to the Deliberating Jury's Note Marked as Court's Exhibit
                           35 .........................................................................706
                         1. Jury's Inquiry; Defendant's Proposed Response; and Response
                              Provided by Court .......................................................706
                         2. Court's Bench Decision Regarding Response to Court Exhibit 35 .............708
                         3. Instructing the Jury That the Government Must Prove That the
                              Defendant, Inter Alia, Understood That the Goal of the Conspiracy
                              was "Wrong" Would Have Been Both Non-Responsive to the
                              Jury's Inquiry, as Well as an Incorrect Statement of the Law ............709
                         4. Conclusion Regarding Response Given to Court Exhibit 35 ...................710
                      B. The Court Properly Charged the Elements of the CCTA to the Jury ..............711
                         1. The Court's Instruction as to Section 471 was Appropriate .................712
                         2. The Government was not Required to Prove That the Persons or
                               Entities That Purchased the Cigarettes Referenced in Racketeering
                               Acts Five Through Eighty Were Non-Native Americans or
                               Otherwise Exempt From the CCTA .........................................714
                      C. Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on Count Two Based on Court's
                            Refusal to Instruct the Jury on the Defenses of Entrapment by
                            Estoppel and Public Authority, and on Specific Intent, is Denied ..........716
                         1. Entrapment by Estoppel ....................................................717
                            a. Applicable Law .........................................................717
                            b. Evidence Defendant Sought to Place Before the Jury as a
                                 Factual Predicate for the Entrapment by Estoppel Defense .............717
                            c. Government's Objections to Defendant's Proffer .........................717
                            d. Court Held That Defense Could Try to Establish the Defense
                                  Under a Conduit Theory Whereby the Purported Misrepresentations
                                  of Law by the Governor or Other Public Officials
                                  Could be Relayed Through Facer ......................................717
                            e. Facer's Trial Testimony ................................................718
                               i. Meetings and Conference Calls in 1996 and Early 1997
                                     Regarding Governor's Intention to Enforce the Milhelm
                                     Attea Regulations, i.e. to Attempt to Collect Taxes Due
                                     for On-Reservation Sales to Non-Native Americans .................718
                

                             ii. Governor's May 22, 1997 Press Release Indicating he was
                                  not Going to Enforce the Milhelm Attea Regulations ..................719
                              f. Facer did not Serve as a Conduit for the Governor's May 22
                                  1997 Statement for Purposes of the Entrapment by Estoppel
                                  Defense .............................................................719
                         2. Public Authority Defense ..................................................720
                III. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a New Trial as to Count Eight (Felon
                      In Possession Count) is Denied ..................................................720
                     A. Testimony of Allison Stewart ("Allison" or "Stewart")..........................721
                     B. Testimony of Wynette Randall ("Randall") ......................................721
                     C. Testimony of Suffolk County Police Detective George Herring
                         ("Herring") ..................................................................721
                     D. Defendant's September 18, 2003 Telephone Conversation With Stewart
                         Regarding the two Glocks......................................................722
                CONCLUSION ............................................................................723
                

Presently before the Court is the motion by defendant Rodney Morrison ("defendant" or "Morrison") to dismiss Counts Two and Eight of the second superseding indictment (hereinafter "indictment") under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 29 or for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33. For the following...