United States v. Allgood
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 21-416 (RDM) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DEMARCO L. ALLGOOD et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Defendants DeMarco Allgood, Nathaniel Holmes, and Malik Hill are charged in a four-count superseding indictment with kidnapping a sixteen-year-old woman, T.L., in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1201(a) & (g). See Dkt. 90. In the same indictment, Holmes is charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-3002(a)(1) & (a)(2).[1] The case is set for trial on May 5, 2022. All three Defendants have moved to sever the sexual abuse charges and to proceed to trial on the kidnapping charges alone. See Dkt. 65 (Hill); Dkt 66 (Holmes); Dkt. 71 (Allgood); Dkt. 108 (Hill). Hill and Allgood also move, in the alternative, to sever Holmes. See Dkt. 65; Dkt. 71; Dkt. 108.
The Court has provided the parties with numerous opportunities to present their views on this issue through briefs supplemental filings, and oral arguments. See Dkt. 65; Dkt. 66; Dkt. 71; Dkt. 76; Dkt. 108; Dkt. 112; Dkt. 117; Dkt. 124; Dkt. 127; Dkt. 132; see also Dkt. 126 (Jan. 31, 2022 Hrg. Tr.); Dkt. 129 (Jan 20, 2022 Hrg. Tr.); Dkt. 133 (Feb. 7, 2022 Hrg. Tr.). For the following reasons, in addition to those stated on the record during the most recent oral argument, the Court will DENY Defendants' motions to sever.
The charges in this case are based on events that allegedly occurred on the night of April 20 and the morning of April 21, 2021. On the night of April 20, Defendants Allgood, Hill, and Holmes allegedly attended a candlelight vigil for their deceased friend, Kerry “Dirty” Odoms, who had been killed. Dkt. 103 at 1. The vigil was also attended by a sixteen-year-old woman referred to as T.L., with whom Odoms had allegedly been romantically involved. Id. According to the government, before Odoms was killed, he “left a bag containing stolen guns and white powder with T.L.” Dkt. 67 at 1-2.
The government maintains that, after the vigil, Allgood approached T.L. and asked her whether Odoms “had left anything with her.” Id. at 3. T.L. said that she would check, “and Allgood put his number in [her] phone.” Id. The two parted ways, and T.L. went home. Id. T.L. tried to ignore Allgood's repeated calls that night, but she “eventually told . . . Allgood that she only had some ‘white stuff.'” Id. Allgood, then, allegedly told T.L. “to let him know if she found anything else in the house.” Id.
Unsatisfied, Allgood, Holmes, and Hill allegedly went to T.L.'s apartment at approximately 11:52 p.m., and Allgood demanded, “where the shit at?” Id. at 4. The men then allegedly “pushed [T.L] through the apartment and searched for the guns.” Id. When T.L. “denied knowing about the guns, ” Hill, who was allegedly armed, “told Holmes that they should kill” T.L. Id. At that point, T.L. allegedly told the men that she gave the guns to Witness 1, and they then forced her to call Witness 1 and to tell the witness “that either the guns would turn up or [T.L.] would be dead.” Id. Witness 1 denied knowledge of the guns, despite T.L.'s pleas to tell the men where the guns were located. Id. While the men allegedly continued to confine T.L. in her apartment, Holmes then called Donaesha Hawkins, who arrived at the apartment at approximately 12:24 a.m. Id. When Hawkins entered the apartment, Holmes allegedly told her that T.L. “had ‘Dirty's shit' and would not tell [them] where it was.” Id. Hawkins, in turn, “took off her jacket and started to hit and punch [T.L.] all over her body, ” and, after T.L. fell to the ground, proceeded to kick her. Id. at 4-5. Allgood allegedly “pulled [T.L.] to her feet by [her] hair so that Hawkins could continue beating [her].” Dkt. 1-1 at 5.
When T.L. told the men that Witness 1 had given “the guns to someone who lived in Maryland, ” Holmes, Allgood, and Hill allegedly told T.L. “to get into a car so that she could lead them to the location.” Dkt. 67 at 5. According to the government, T.L. “agreed to take them to Maryland, but only because she did not feel that she had a choice after having been beaten up by Hawkins and held in her apartment.” Id. T.L. then directed the men to an apartment complex in Suitland, Maryland, “where she believed the guns were.” Id. Defendants “did not attempt to enter the apartment [complex]”; instead, “after [T.L.] pointed out the building, the group decided to return to D.C.” Id. During the drive, Holmes allegedly told T.L. that he protected her from “harm by others” and that he was “driving quickly because the other men wanted to kill her.” Dkt. 112 at 3. According to the government, “[o]nce back in Washington, D.C., Allgood displayed a gun and told [T.L.] that if the stolen guns did not show up in two to three days, he would kill her.” Dkt. 67 at 6.
Upon returning to T.L.'s apartment, Defendants Hill and Allgood “drove away, ” but Defendant Holmes stayed with T.L. Id. The government alleges that Defendant Holmes then sexually assaulted T.L., in part by “threatening [T.L.]” that he would “call back the other men to hurt her” if she did not engage in sexual acts. Id. at 7. Holmes also allegedly told T.L., or words to that effect. Dkt. 112 at 4.
On June 21, 2021, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendants with one count of kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Dkt. 17 at 1. The indictment also charged Holmes with one count of first-degree sexual abuse, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-3002(a)(1) & (a)(2). Id. at 2. On January 13, 2022, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment, again charging Defendants with kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (Count 1), but adding an allegation that the victim was a minor, [2] and now charging Holmes with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-3002(a)(1) & (a)(2) (Counts 3 and 4). Dkt. 90. Defendants have filed motions to sever the sexual abuse charges from the kidnapping charge. Dkt. 65; Dkt. 66; Dkt. 71.[3] In the alterative, Allgood and Hill move to sever Holmes from their trial. Dkt. 65; Dkt. 66.
Defendants first argue that the sexual abuse charges were improperly joined with the kidnapping charge in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8. That rule provides, in relevant part: “The indictment or information may charge 2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed R. Crim. P. 8(b); see also United States v. Jackson, 562 F.2d 789, 794 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (). Rule 8(b) is not a demanding rule-it is satisfied when “all [defendants] participated in some way in the series of transactions that link the counts, and not necessarily in each act that makes up the series, ” United States v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1166, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1995), so long as “a logical relationship” connects “the acts or transactions within the series, ” United States v. Nicely, 922 F.2d 850, 853 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Perry, 731 F.2d 985, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Courts have construed the rule “broadly in favor of joinder, ” United States v. Williams, 507 F.Supp.3d 181, 194 (D.D.C. 2020); see also Nicely, 922 F.2d at 853, in light of the “general policy favoring joint trials of defendants indicted together, especially when . . . the respective charges require presentation of much of the same evidence, testimony of the same witnesses, and involve [multiple] defendants who are charged, inter alia, with participating in the same illegal acts, ” United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1365 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
Defendants contend that joining the sexual abuse counts with the kidnapping count violates Rule 8(b) because “the alleged sexual assault occurred after the alleged kidnapping was over and the defendants (other than Holmes) had left, ” Dkt. 71 at 2, and because “there is no common plan or scheme that encompasses all defendants and all counts, ” id. (emphasis omitted). Neither argument is convincing.
Defendants' first contention turns on a disputed factual premise. According to Defendants, the alleged kidnapping ended when the group returned from Maryland. Any crime that occurred after that time, according to Allgood, Holmes, and Hill, was distinct from the alleged kidnapping, and it is a mistake to join charges relating to any such separate crime to the kidnapping charges. The crimes of kidnapping and sexual assault, in other words, are not part of “the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). The problem with this argument, however, is that the government contends that the kidnapping continued through the sexual assault, even if Holmes was the only member of the original group present at that time. See Dkt. 76 at 15. The government maintains that T.L. continued to fear for her safety and did not feel free to leave, and the purpose of the kidnapping-to convince T.L. to assist them in obtaining the stolen guns- continued. That contention, moreover, finds some support in Allgood's alleged threat to T.L. after the group returned from Maryland, see Dkt. 67 at 6, and Holmes' alleged threat to “call back the other men to hurt [T.L]” if she did not engage in sexual acts, Dkt. 76 at 7. The government's theory is also consistent with the indictment, which charges that that the kidnaping took...
To continue reading
Request your trial