U.S. v. Taylor, 2:01-CR-0073-AS.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2:01-CR-0073-AS.,2:01-CR-0073-AS.
• Citation: 302 F.Supp.2d 901
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Styles TAYLOR and Keon Thomas, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

302 F.Supp.2d 901

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Styles TAYLOR and Keon Thomas, Defendants.

No. 2:01-CR-0073-AS.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

December 17, 2003.

Philip Craig Benson, U.S. Attorney's Office — Hmd/IN, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff.

David E Vandercoy, Valparaiso University Law Clinic, Valparaiso, IN, John E. Martin, Federal Community Defenders Inc. — Ham/IN, Hammond, IN, Keith A. Spielfogel, Scott J. Frankel, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Keon Thomas and Styles Taylor's Joint Motion to Declare Death Penalty Unconstitutional [DE 441]. The Government responded to Defendants Taylor and Thomas' Motion [DE 490]¹. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Declare the Federal Death Penalty Unconstitutional is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Thomas and Taylor are charged with various violations of federal law concerning a robbery and murder at the Firearms Unlimited Gun Shop located in Hammond, Indiana. Specifically, Taylor and Thomas are charged with conspiracy to commit robbery of a federally licensed firearms store and murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (Count 1); armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (Count 2); the murder of Frank Freund in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j), 924(c)(1) and 1951 and 2 (Count 3); and felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 2 (Counts 4, 5 and 6).²

In their Joint Motion, Taylor and Thomas seek to have the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA) declared unconstitutional and the capital counts against them dismissed. In support of their motion, Defendants argue that the FDPA is unconstitutional based on (1) the holdings of Apprendi, Ring and Fell; (2) the fact that the FDPA fails to require the inclusion of non-statutory factors in the indictment; and (3) the inevitability that an innocent person will be executed causes it to violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

In Response, the Government rejects the Defendants' arguments and requests that the Court dismiss each of the Defendants' challenges to the constitutionality of the FDPA. Specifically, the Government maintains that the relaxed evidentiary standard of the FDPA conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; that the FDPA is not rendered unconstitutional under Ring, Apprendi or Fell; that neither the Indictment Clause nor the holdings of Ring or Apprendi require that the non-statutory aggravating factors be charged in the indictment; and that the FDPA is not rendered unconstitutional based on the mere possibility that an innocent person could be executed.

Before this Court addresses each of Defendants' challenges to the FDPA, an outline of the procedural requirements contained in the FDPA would be useful.

Overview of the Death Penalty Statutes

A jury must follow certain procedural requirements before it can impose the death penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3591. Under § 3591, the jury must first determine whether one of the threshold culpability factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a) is present. If the jury does not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the requisite threshold (or necessary aggravating) factors have been proven, the death penalty cannot be imposed. In the event that the jury finds the requisite factors, the jury must then consider the statutory aggravating factors alleged by the government in its notice to seek the death penalty. The jury must determine whether the government has proven at least one of the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3592 beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) and (d). If the jury finds the government has not made the requisite showing, the death penalty cannot be imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(d).

However, if the jury finds the requisite statutory aggravating factor(s) have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it must then weigh that factor or factors, and any non-statutory aggravating factors, against any mitigating factors to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(d) and (e). Non-statutory aggravating factors, like their statutory counterparts, must be unanimously found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas mitigating factors need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Finally, any juror that finds that a mitigating factor exists may consider it in deliberation — unanimity is not required. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) and (d).

1. The FDPA is not rendered unconstitutional under Apprendi, Ring and Fell³

Defendants Taylor and Thomas appear to present a two-pronged challenge based on the holdings of Apprendi, Ring, and Fell. First, Defendants discuss Apprendi and Ring and claim that the FDPA is unconstitutional since it does not require the statutory aggravating factors to be charged in the indictment. Additionally, in an underdeveloped argument, Defendants seem to contend that the FDPA is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury to find the existence of aggravating factors. Second, Defendants rely on Fell to argue that the FDPA is fatally flawed because it does not apply the Federal Rules of Evidence in the sentencing phase of a capital trial.

a. Statutory Aggravating Factors

As a preliminary matter, this Court finds, consistent with Apprendi and Ring that the FDPA's mental culpability requirements set forth in § 3591(a) and the statutory aggravating factors set forth in § 3592(c) increase the maximum penalty beyond that provided in the statute. Therefore, following Apprendi, these requirements are considered the functional equivalents of a greater offense. However, unlike Arizona's capital sentencing scheme at issue in Ring, which allowed a trial judge to determine the presence or absence of statutory aggravating factors, the FDPA requires such factors to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593; see also Ring, 536 U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2443, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)(invalidating Arizona's death penalty statute "to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for the imposition of the death penalty ... the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.") This provision, enacted eight years prior to the Court's decision in Ring, is wholly consistent with the treatment of statutory aggravating factors as elements of an offense as mandated by Apprendi.

Turning to the case at bar, the Court finds that the Defendants' arguments are without merit. First, the Court finds that the FDPA is in the limits of both Ring and Apprendi by requiring that the statutory aggravating factors, which are considered the functional equivalent of an element of the offense, to be considered by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Next, the Court finds the Government has satisfied the requirement that any fact that is the functional equivalent of an element of an offense be charged in the indictment by presenting these facts to the grand jury which in turn, returned the Second Superseding Indictment which contains the statutory aggravating factors and mental culpability requirements. In fact, the Defendants concede this point in their joint brief. (Def's Jt. Mot. at 4). For the foregoing reasons, this Court find that Defendants' constitutional challenge of the FDPA's on the basis that its provisions do not conform to the requirements of Apprendi and Ring is without merit.

b. Evidentiary Standard Employed at Sentencing Phase

Defendants Taylor and Thomas rely on a recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Vermont in support of their argument that the FDPA is unconstitutional due to the relaxed evidentiary standard employed during the penalty phase of a death penalty case. See United States v. Fell, 217 F.Supp.2d 469, 489 (D.Vt.2002). In Fell, the court held that the relaxed evidentiary standard provided under the FDPA for the penalty phase of a capital prosecution violates a defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and confrontation and cross-examination provisions of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 485. For the following reasons, this Court respectfully declines to follow the analysis set forth in Fell and finds that the evidentiary standard found in § 3593(c)⁴ of the FDPA upholds the constitutional required balance between the needs for heightened reliability and individualized sentencing by enabling the judge, as gatekeeper, to bar unreliable or unfair sentencing information. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c).

The ultimate question raised with Defendants' challenge to § 3593 is whether the FDPA must incorporate the Federal Rules of Evidence into its provisions to withstand constitutional scrutiny. This Court finds, as other courts have, that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the rules of evidence are not synonymous. See United States v. Mikos, No. 02 CR 137-1, 2003 WL 22110948, at *10 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 11, 2003). Rather, "the Due Process Clause is the baseline standard with which a statute must comply to remain fundamentally fair, and the rules of evidence is a set of heightened procedural rules that go beyond the minimum standards required by the Fifth Amendment." Id. In actuality, § 3593(c) is broader in scope than Rule 403, the corresponding exclusionary provision under the Federal Rule of Evidence. While both provisions balance the probative value of evidence against the prejudicial effect, Rule 403 allows a trial judge to exclude evidence only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect whereas § 3593(c) permits exclusion of evidence whenever its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Under both provisions, the judge, as gatekeeper, has the ability to exclude any evidence from trial that he deems overly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading. As a result,...