United States v. Belcher

• Decision Date: 30 January 2023
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL 4:19-cr-25
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA O'KEITH BELCHER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA O'KEITH BELCHER, Defendant.

CRIMINAL No. 4:19-cr-25

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division

January 30, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for a new trial. ECF No. 181. Joshua Belcher (“Belcher”) requests a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, claiming that the court denied him a defense by not admitting a proposed exhibit and erred by not giving a proposed defense jury instruction. The government filed a response to Belcher's motion. ECF No. 184. As the matter has been fully briefed, the court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. As neither of the issues raised by Belcher weighs in favor of setting aside the jury verdict in this case, the motion for new trial, ECF No. 181, is DENIED.^[1]

I.

Belcher was charged in a one count indictment with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). Trial took

1

place in Danville, Virginia on July 25-26, 2022, at the conclusion of which the jury returned a guilty verdict as to Count One.

The facts of the case are straightforward. Shortly after 6 a.m. on April 20, 2019, Belcher was driving a pickup truck in the City of Martinsville. Martinsville police officer Jayme Clark noticed that Belcher's truck had a taillight out and conducted a traffic stop.^[2] The jury was able to view the entirety of Clark's encounter with Belcher, both at the Valero gas station where the traffic stop occurred and at the Martinsville city jail, by means of Clark's body camera video. During the course of the traffic stop, Clark observed a firearm underneath the seat of the pickup truck. Trial Tr., ECF No. 176, at 49. Clark began questioning Belcher about the gun, to which Belcher provided no substantive response. After checking on the firearm through dispatch, Clark was advised that the firearm had been reported stolen. Id. at 60. Clark arrested Belcher. Id. at 61. Rather than impound the vehicle, Clark allowed Belcher to call his father, Roy Hairston, who was the registered owner of the truck, to come get the pickup truck. Id. at 60-61. Clark and Belcher waited for Hairston to arrive. Id. at 61. While waiting for Hairston, Clark's persistent questioning about the source of the gun continued, again without substantive response from Belcher. The body camera video shows that upon Hairston's arrival, Clark asked Hairston whether he wanted to know the details of why his son was in custody, and Hairston responded “I don't even want to know.” Hairston expressed appreciation for calling him and not impounding the truck. Clark asked Hairston whether he

2

wanted to speak to his son, and Hairston shook his head and said “No.” Clark told Hairston that he thought Belcher wanted to speak with him, but Hairston declined, stating “No, I'm good, I'll just take the keys.” As the body camera video of the traffic stop was played for the jury, the jury had the ability to fully observe and assess the interactions of Clark, Belcher, and Hairston.

After leaving the Valero gas station, Clark escorted Belcher to the Martinsville city jail where Belcher asked what charges he was facing. Clark told Belcher that he had enough to charge him with possession of a stolen firearm, and asked Belcher “Did you buy it off somebody?” Belcher responded: “Yeah, but I don't know who the person was I got it from. That's why I say you won't believe it, if I tell you, you won't believe it.” Again, the jury was able to view the videotaped interaction between Belcher and Clark at the jail and fully assess Belcher's statement that he bought the gun from an unknown person.

At trial, Belcher argued that the government did not prove that Belcher possessed the firearm and that his confession was coerced. Belcher's counsel also criticized the police investigation, asserting that “[t]heir method of investigation is cheap, easy, and coercive. They don't care what the truth is. They just care about giving you a story that will give them a conviction in the easiest and the quickest way possible.” Closing Arg., ECF No. 177, at 267. In closing argument, Belcher's counsel addressed the failure of the police to investigate whether the gun belonged to Belcher's father, as follows:

Because what else didn't they do? They didn't look into Roy Hairston. And you can't ignore the fact that this vehicle belongs to Roy Hairston; it's registered to him. He is a business owner; it's a work truck. And even Mr. Belcher-even Officer Clark, when he stops Mr. Belcher, he knows, he indicates he knows that Mr. Belcher is headed to work. “Are you headed to work? Are

3

you going to wash cars?” And he knows all this because he knows the circumstances

He's a Martinsville police officer. He is familiar with Hairston Enterprises. He tells Roy Hairston, when he shows up to pick up the car, that he's met him before, that he's been by the shop. He testified, when he was on the stand, that he was familiar with the shop, he was familiar with Mr. Hairston, and he was familiar with that truck being at that shop.

But they never investigate whether Roy Hairston is allowed to have a gun, whether he does have-you know, whether he has a concealed carry permit, whether he's allowed to have a gun in general. And so you should consider, too, that Joshua Belcher, who didn't know anything about this gun, is probably here wondering, “Could this be my dad's gun? Did my dad steal a gun?”

And when Roy Hairston shows up at the scene, he doesn't want to talk to Joshua Belcher, because maybe Roy Hairston knows that if he goes over to Joshua Belcher, Josh is going to say, “Dad, what's going on with this gun?” Because he didn't know, Roy Hairston didn't know at that point that Joshua is being accused of having a firearm. Clark told you he specifically, and you saw it on the video, did not include that information. So as far as we know, unless Roy Hairston knows something that we don't in that moment, he just thinks his son is being arrested for driving on a suspended license.

But if Roy Hairston knew that he left a gun in that car, he probably wouldn't want to go up to Josh at that point, because then his son is in trouble and then who knows what's going to happen afterwards if they have that conversation, with the body cams running and dash cams running and all of that. So he doesn't talk to his son even though his son wants to talk to him. You can consider that, and you should consider that.

Id. at 267-269.

Belcher asked the court to give a defense theory jury instruction as follows:

Mr. Belcher's defense is that he did not “knowingly” possess any weapon, and that the government has not proven beyond a

4

reasonable doubt that Mr. Belcher knew any weapon was in his father's truck.

ECF No. 181 at 3. The court declined to give this instruction as the burden of proof and the element of knowing possession of the firearm were fully covered in the jury instructions. Trial Tr., ECF No. 177, at 223-224.

II.

Belcher's motion for a new trial argues that two rulings by the court, one sustaining the government's objection to Defense Exhibit 1, and one on a proposed defense jury instruction, were erroneous. As a result of these claimed errors, Belcher requests a new trial.

Rule 33 provides that “upon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). When district courts choose to grant a new trial on grounds affecting the interest of justice, issues like the discovery of new evidence are generally involved. A trial court “should exercise its discretion to award a new trial sparingly,” and a jury verdict is not to be overturned except in the rare circumstance when the evidence “weighs heavily” against it. United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In deciding a motion for a new trial, the district court is not constrained by the requirement that it view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government” and “may evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Miller, 41 F.4th 302, 315 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1485 (4th Cir. 1985)).

III.

Belcher asserts that he was denied his right to present a complete defense at trial because the court sustained the government's objection to the introduction of Defense Exhibit

5

1,^[3] which consists of six pages of state court criminal records from the City of Martinsville dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s naming Roy Lynwood Hairston^[4] and concerning Sale of Marijuana and Accommodation Distribution of Marijuana.^[5] Belcher sought to introduce these six pages as Defense Exhibit 1 to establish that Belcher's father was a convicted felon prohibited from possessing a firearm, which would permit defense counsel to explain away Belcher's confession to Clark that he bought the gun from an unknown person as a lie told to protect his father and to explain Hairston's unwillingness to speak with Belcher at the Valero gas station.

Belcher did not call a witness at trial to testify about proposed Defense Exhibit 1, and sought to admit it without any testimony supporting its admission. The government objected that the introduction of the old criminal documents, without more, lacked foundation and

6

required the jury to speculate. The defense countered that the name reflected on Defense Exhibit 1, Roy Lynwood Hairston (and on one document Roy Lynwood Hairston, Jr.) matched that of the registered owner of the truck Belcher was...