U.S. v. Morrison, No. 04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | Hurley |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.2d 661 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Rodney Arnoldo MORRISON, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2). |
| Decision Date | 06 February 2009 |
v.
Rodney Arnoldo MORRISON, Defendant.
Page 662
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 663
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 664
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 665
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 666
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.
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
Page 667
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
Page 668
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 reasons, defendant's motion is DENIED.
Familiarity with the facts and procedural background is presumed. Thus, the Court states only those facts necessary for disposition of the instant motion.
I. The Indictment
On July 11, 2006, the government filed the indictment charging defendant, a cigarette on-reservation retailer,1 with eleven counts, to wit: (1) Count One (conducting and participating in the affairs of an enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ("substantive RICO count")); (2) Count Two (racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ("RICO conspiracy")); (3) Count Three (arson conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)); (4) Count Four (arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i) and 2); (5) Count Five (conspiracy to use extortionate means to punish nonrepayment of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(2)); (6) Count Six (extortionate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
11 practice notes
-
City of N.Y. v. Gordon, No. 12 Civ. 4838(JMF).
...§ 121(a)(1), 120 Stat. 192, 221 (2006). 4. The only case that even arguably supports Defendants' position is United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009), in which the court stated that certain cigarette resellers did “not necessarily” violate the CCTA because their “resales ......
-
City of N.Y. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 13 Civ. 9173ER.
...accordingly, 10,000 cigarettes equals 50 cartons of cigarettes. Am. Compl. ¶ 90.7 FedEx Ground's reliance on United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009), is misplaced. In an opinion denying defendant's motion for a new trial, the court observed that certain resales of unstam......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Gould
...2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20953 (E.D.N.Y.2009), question certified to N.Y. Ct. App. 597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009) ) are distinguishable as they do not raise the same issues concerning collection of sales taxes from Indian retailers based ......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation Of N.Y. v. Gould
...2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20953 (E.D.N.Y.2009), question certified to N.Y. Ct. App. 597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009) ) are distinguishable as they do not raise the same issues concerning collection of sales taxes from Indian retailers based ......
Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
-
City of N.Y. v. Gordon, No. 12 Civ. 4838(JMF).
...§ 121(a)(1), 120 Stat. 192, 221 (2006). 4. The only case that even arguably supports Defendants' position is United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009), in which the court stated that certain cigarette resellers did “not necessarily” violate the CCTA because their “resales ......
-
City of N.Y. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 13 Civ. 9173ER.
...accordingly, 10,000 cigarettes equals 50 cartons of cigarettes. Am. Compl. ¶ 90.7 FedEx Ground's reliance on United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009), is misplaced. In an opinion denying defendant's motion for a new trial, the court observed that certain resales of unstam......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Gould
...2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20953 (E.D.N.Y.2009), question certified to N.Y. Ct. App. 597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009) ) are distinguishable as they do not raise the same issues concerning collection of sales taxes from Indian retailers based ......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation Of N.Y. v. Gould
...2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20953 (E.D.N.Y.2009), question certified to N.Y. Ct. App. 597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Morrison, 596 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.N.Y.2009) ) are distinguishable as they do not raise the same issues concerning collection of sales taxes from Indian retailers based ......
Request a trial to view additional results