United States v. Brooks

Decision Date19 September 2018
Docket NumberCriminal Action No. 17-250
Parties UNITED STATES of America, v. Jamal BROOKS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Jerome A. Moschetta, Washington County District Attorney's Office, Washington, PA, for United States of America.

Samantha L. Stern, Federal Public Defender, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Joy Flowers Conti, Chief United States District Judge

I. Introduction

A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment against defendant Jamal Brooks ("Brooks") for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 15.) Brooks filed a motion to dismiss1 arguing, among other things, that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because his disqualifying conviction, a misdemeanor conviction for carrying a firearm without a license in violation of 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6106(a)(2), was not for a serious offense. (ECF No. 39 at 10.)

II. Case Background

On February 28, 2018, the court held a hearing with respect to Brooks' motion to dismiss and other pretrial motions. The court at the hearing explained that it would apply the two-step analysis set forth by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) to analyze Brooks' as-applied constitutional attack on § 922(g)(1). That two-step analysis requires the court to consider evidence and legal argument presented by the parties to determine (1) whether § 922(g)(1), a presumptively lawful regulation, burdens Brooks' Second Amendment rights, and, if so, (2) whether § 922(g)(1) satisfies intermediate scrutiny. Binderup, 836 F.3d at 355. The court permitted the parties to file supplemental briefing to address the parties' burdens of proof and whether the Federal Rules of Evidence applied to the court's consideration of evidence submitted with respect to the two-part Binderup analysis.

On May 24, 2018, this court issued an opinion on procedural matters and explained that at step one of its Binderup analysis, the court would find the facts and determine whether Brooks satisfied his burden to make a strong showing that his disqualifying conviction was not for a serious offense, i.e., his circumstances are distinguished from the class of persons historically barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights and he can overcome the presumptive lawfulness of § 922(g)(1). If Brooks satisfied his burden, the burden would shift under step two to the government. At step two, the court would find the facts and determine whether the government met its burden to show that prohibiting persons like Brooks from bearing arms under § 922(g)(1) is substantially related to its important interest of promoting public safety and preventing armed mayhem. If Brooks satisfies step one, the government's evidence at step two must be meaningful to strip him of his Second Amendment rights. The court explained that it would not strictly apply the Federal Rules of Evidence to its consideration of the evidence and may consider hearsay evidence. (ECF No. 60 at 25-26.)

On June 25, 2018, and July 10, 2018, the court held a hearing for the parties to present evidence to satisfy their respective burdens under Binderup. Both parties entered into evidence exhibits, and the government presented the testimony of seven witnesses. On August 20, 2018, the parties filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearing held on June 25, 2018, and July 10, 2018, and the arguments made by counsel, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

III. Findings of Fact2

A. Brooks' Relevant Juvenile Conviction

1. On January 22, 2008, Brooks—at the age of fifteen years old—was adjudicated delinquent for possession of heroin, possession of ecstasy, and possession of a small amount of marijuana. (Ex. 1 at 1-2.)

B. The Vehicle Shooting on April 19, 2015

2. Joi Clark ("Clark") and Felicia Johnson ("Johnson") testified with respect to a shooting that occurred on April 19, 2015. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 32, 42.)

3. Clark and Johnson in the early morning hours of April 19, 2015, were at 5406 Columbo Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which was a "row house" amongst three other row houses ("Johnson's row house"). (Id. at 32-33, 44.) Johnson's row house was in the middle of two of the four row houses. (Id. at 44.) Johnson's three minor children also lived at the row house. (Id. at 42.) As of April 19, 2015, Johnson had lived at her row house for two to three years. (Id. at 44.)

4. On April 18, 2015, at about 11:00 p.m., Johnson drove Clark to her row house in Clark's sister's vehicle, a white 2012 Ford Fusion (the "Ford Fusion"), which they parked near Johnson's row house. (Id. at 33, 38.)

5. Shortly after Johnson's and Clark's arrival at Johnson's row house, a neighbor who lived in a row house next to Johnson's row house banged on the door. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 34-35, 45-46.) Johnson recognized the neighbor; she had seen him "often" prior to April 19, 2015. (Id. at 46.)

6. The following exchange took place between Johnson and the government during the June 25, 2018 hearing with respect to whether Brooks was the neighbor involved in the incident with Clark and Johnson on April 19, 2015:

Q. Do you see that individual here in the courtroom today?
A. You are standing in front of him.
Q. Excuse me?
A. I don't know.
Q. It's okay.
A. He got a haircut and he didn't have a beard.
Q. Are you indicating that the defendant is that person but appeared differently? Do you need some additional time?
A. He just looks different. I don't remember him having a lot of hair or that beard.
Q. The person that you saw at your door that night, what do you recall him looking like?
A. He's like probably two inches taller than me.
Q. How tall are you?
A. I'm only about 5'5?.
Q. Do you recall anything else about him?
A. He was little. He wasn't big. He wasn't a big guy. Like the build seems him. He just looks different with the hair and the beard.

(H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 46-47.)

7. Clark was in the living room of Johnson's row house and there were children present in Johnson's row house at the time the neighbor knocked on the door. (Id. at 34-35.)

8. According to Clark, when Johnson opened the door, the neighbor said: "I'm tired of you expletives, dealing with you and this parking[.]" (Id. at 35.) The neighbor drew a firearm from his right pocket, pointed it at Johnson's face, turned around, and shot the Ford Fusion. (Id. at 35, 37, 48.) Clark testified that the firearm was "no more than two feet" from Johnson's face. (Id. at 37.) Johnson testified that the neighbor pointed the gun at her before he shot the Ford Fusion. (Id. at 48.) Clark testified the neighbor "seemed aggressive, angry, upset" and "already enraged[.]" (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 36-37.)

9. Johnson testified that the neighbor previously on other occasions asked that she move the car because the neighbor wanted to park his vehicle directly in front of his row house. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 47.) She testified as follows with respect to her recollection of her interaction with the neighbor on April 19, 2015: "We were getting dressed. I was upstairs. They said someone was knocking on the door and it was the neighbor asking to move the car. By the time I got downstairs, I was saying we're not moving the car until we leave, because we're about to leave." (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 45.) Johnson described the neighbor's demeanor as "very aggressive." (Id. )

10. The Ford Fusion was parked six to ten feet away from Johnson's row house, and bullets from the neighbor's firearm struck the Ford Fusion. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 38.) Clark testified that the right front headlight and tires "were shot[,]" and there was a total of "about six...holes in the car." (Id. )

11. Clark could see the neighbor, who was a short male, from her position in the living room. (Id. at 35-36.) Clark testified that the neighbor "looked African American" but maybe "was mixed." (Id. ) Clark could not remember whether Johnson moved onto the porch to speak with the neighbor or stood in the doorway of her row house during the altercation. (Id. at 37.) Johnson testified: "Like, he was inside the doorway, so I pushed him outside, and then I shut the screen and he was talking, saying I need to move the car. Went to the grass. I need to move the car, and he shot the car." (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 45.)

12. Johnson called 9-1-1. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 39.)3 Police officers with the Pittsburgh Police responded to the scene. (Id. at 40.)

13. Specifically, Pittsburgh Police Officer Aaron Obsenica ("Obsenica") and his partner Gregory Livesey ("Livesey") were dispatched to Johnson's row house at approximately 1:15 a.m. on April 19, 2015. (Id. at 55.) Obsenica was the lead officer at the scene, i.e., "other officers...performed different tasks and reported" to Obsenica at the scene. (Id. at 57.)

14. The officers received "a report of a male shooting the complainant's car." (Id. ) The officers arrived at the scene within three minutes. (Id. ) All other officers that were available at the time were dispatched to Johnson's row house. (Id. )

15. Obsenica was informed by a fellow officer that Johnson stated Brooks fired three shots into the Ford Fusion and he may have entered his row house. (H.T. 6/25/2018 (ECF No. 65) at 56.)

16. Obsenica observed that the Ford Fusion had two bullet holes below the passenger side headlight and one bullet hold through the headlight. (Id. at 58.)

17. Other officers questioned Clark and Johnson, Clark identified the neighbor as the actor, and the officers searched the area for him. (Id. at 40, 50, 57.) According to Obsenica, Johnson reported that Brooks used one silver pistol to shoot the Ford Fusion and pointed a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Miller v. Sessions
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 4, 2019
    ...legislature had labeled as a felony); United States v. Irving, 316 F.Supp.3d 879, 888 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (same); United States v. Brooks, 341 F.Supp.3d 566, 597, 606 (W.D. Pa. 2018) (holding that although the challenger satisfied step one and demonstrated that the offense was not "serious," th......
  • Williams v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 1, 2019
    ...Third Circuit. See Binderup , 836 F.3d at 356-57 ; Miller v. Sessions , 356 F.Supp.3d 472, 479 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ; United States v. Brooks , 341 F.Supp.3d 566, 588 (W.D. Pa. 2018) ; King v. Sessions , No. 17-884, 2018 WL 3008527, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2018) ; United States v. Brooks , No. ......
  • Folajtar v. Barr, 5:18-cv-02717
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 22, 2019
    ...See Miller v. Sessions , No. 17-cv-2627, 2019 WL 421074, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16864 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2019) ; United States v. Brooks , 341 F.Supp.3d 566 (W.D. Pa. 2018) ; Gurten v. Sessions , 295 F.Supp.3d 511 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ; Holloway v. Sessions , No. 17-cv-81, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16......
  • United States v. Pollard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • May 19, 2023
    ... ... hearing.” Robinson , 663 Fed.Appx. 218 (citing ... Ebert v. Gaetz , 610 F.3d 404, 414 (7th Cir. 2010) ... In general, “the right of confrontation ‘pertains ... only to adverse witnesses offering testimony at ... trial.'” United States v. Brooks , 341 ... F.Supp.3d 566, 604 (W.D. Pa. 2018) (quoting United States ... v. Soriano-Jarquin , 492 F.3d 495, 504 (4th Cir. 2007), ... and citing United States v. Boyce , 797 F.2d 691, 693 ... (8th Cir. 1986) (explaining “the right of confrontation ... does not apply ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT