United States v. Burks

• Decision Date: 04 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-6010,19-6010
• Citation: 974 F.3d 622
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maurice Duncan BURKS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

974 F.3d 622

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Maurice Duncan BURKS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-6010

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: July 30, 2020

Decided and Filed: September 4, 2020

Rehearing En Banc Denied October 16, 2020

SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Maurice Burks for murdering Malcolm Wright. Burks moved for an acquittal and a new trial, pointing to inconsistencies in witness testimony and a lack of physical evidence. The district court denied Burks's motion for an acquittal but ordered a new trial on the murder charges. The government appeals, and we reverse.

In March 2019, the federal government brought racketeering, drug distribution, and murder charges against eleven members of the Gangster Disciples. Although the gang operates throughout the United States, this prosecution concerns the activities of one "deck," a group based in Clarksville, Tennessee. And although the wider case involves many charges, this appeal concerns just one: Maurice Burks's conviction for murdering Malcolm Wright.

Life as a Gangster Disciple requires commitments all their own. Disciples must pay dues, attend meetings, and study a set of "literature" including "The I Pledge, the We Pledge, the Creed, the 17 Laws, the organizational structure, and the six-point stance." R. 1472 at 90. They must serve in leadership posts, such as "Governor," "Regent," "Literature Coordinator," "Secretary," "Treasurer," "Enforcer," and "Chief of Security." And they must adhere to certain "concepts." For a time, members observed the "360 concept," which outlined a "gangbanger lifestyle." Id. at 76. More recently, the Gangster Disciples upgraded to the "720 concept," which aims to transform the group into "more of an organization." Id. Under both concepts, members must deal drugs, carry guns, and assault and kill rival gang members. "[O]pposition" gangs include the "Crips, Bloods, [and] Vice Lords." Id. at 15.

Maurice Burks, known as "Mac Reese" to other Disciples, was a committed member by all accounts. For several years, he served the Clarksville deck as a "Regent" and an "Enforcer." That gave him leadership responsibility and the duty to "make[ ] sure everything's enforced." R. 1472 at 80.

According to the government, Burks did just that on November 3, 2012. That evening, most of the Clarksville deck agreed to provide security for a Gangster Disciple-turned-rapper named "Lil Scrappy." But one member, Brandon Hardison, decided to go to a club called Sidelines instead. At the club, a group of Bloods attacked him. The club security tossed the group outside, and Hardison immediately called Burks, alerting him and other Gangster Disciples of the assault. A little while later, several Disciples met at another club called C-Ray's. Together, the Disciples searched for a Blood in C-Ray's to seek revenge for Hardison's assault.

The parties agree on a few points about what happened next. Several Gangster Disciples entered C-Ray's and discovered Malcolm Wright, a Blood who had helped attack Hardison, partying without his crew. Wright and his girlfriend, Kristine Gaskin, went to C-Ray's on their own after the Sidelines attack. Outnumbered, Wright tried to smooth things over with the Disciples. The group attacked Wright anyway. During the melee, someone shot Wright in the leg. He staggered toward the club's front door and collapsed. Someone fired a second shot into Wright's abdomen. Gaskin, hiding elsewhere, helped Wright leave the club. The pair managed to reach a ramp before Wright collapsed and died.

The disagreement centers on who shot Wright. The government claims it was Burks. At trial, prosecutors presented three informants to tie Burks to the killing. One testified that Burks later confessed to the murder. Another told a grand jury that Burks confessed to killing Wright but refused to repeat the testimony on the stand during the trial. And a third said that Burks confessed to killing someone without naming Wright as the victim. Based on that evidence, the jury convicted Burks on all charges arising from Wright's death.

Burks moved for an acquittal and new trial. The district court denied Burks an acquittal but granted him a new trial on four counts, deeming the verdict for those counts "against the manifest weight of the evidence." R. 1460 at 49. The government appealed. Some months later, the government realized it had not disclosed two investigation reports related to Burks's case. Burks moved for a new trial on two counts not subject to the new trial order, claiming the government had violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The district court denied the motion, and it is not the subject of this appeal.

I.

Criminal Rule 33 permits a district court "to vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). This language authorizes a district court to order a new trial if the evidence weighs "heavily against the verdict." United States v. Bowens , 938 F.3d 790, 796 (6th Cir. 2019). Before making its decision, the court must consider competing principles. On the one hand, it must scrutinize the record and ensure that a "miscarriage of justice" did not occur. United States v. Lutz , 154 F.3d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1998). On the other hand, the court must respect the role of the jury and ensure that evidence-supported convictions are upheld. Id. Only in "extraordinary circumstances," United States v. Hughes , 505 F.3d 578, 592–93 (6th Cir. 2007), when the verdict exceeds the bounds of reasonableness, should the district court order a new trial. "The verdict [is not] unreasonable simply because different inferences could have been drawn or because other results are more reasonable." United States v. Lyimo , 574 F. App'x 667, 672 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Porter v. Lima Mem'l Hosp. , 995 F.2d 629, 635 (6th Cir. 1993) ); see also Butcher v. United States , 368 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he court may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict simply because it feels some other result would be more reasonable." (quotation omitted)). Mindful of the trial court's ring-side view of the evidence, we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ashworth , 836 F.2d 260, 266 (6th Cir. 1988).

The court abused its discretion. It discounted one informant's grand jury testimony without a valid reason. And it discredited the other informants’ trial testimony based on contested facts that we generally task juries with resolving. The evidence produced in this case did not weigh heavily against the verdict. It set out a straightforward narrative that the jury could reasonably believe.

Start with the grand jury testimony introduced at trial. After Ronnie Daniels, a friend of several Disciples, refused to testify, the government introduced his grand jury statements. In that testimony, Daniels admitted that he met several Disciples at C-Ray's, including Burks, on the night of the shooting. Outside the club, the group decided to "execute" someone inside the club. R. 1321 at 47. Daniels observed the group, which included Burks, go inside the club, and a few minutes later, a stream of people came running out. A Disciple, "Trap," returned to the car and told Daniels to wait for Burks. A "half a minute later," Burks exited the club. Id. at 57. A few weeks after that, Daniels overheard Burks tell Trap to leave him alone or he would "do you like I did that N-word at C-Ray's." Id. at 60.

The district court discounted this testimony on the ground that the "jury in this case had no way to assess Daniels’ credibility." R. 1460 at 48. It's true that whenever out-of-court statements are admitted as evidence at trial, the jury has no way to assess credibility in the sense of being able to observe the declarant's demeanor at the time the out-of-court statement is made. But in this particular case, the district court's perspective overlooks two realities. One: Grand jury statements may be admitted as substantive evidence of a crime. United States v. LaVictor , 848 F.3d 428, 451 (6th Cir. 2017). It's for the jury to decide how much weight to give this evidence, and it's for the jury to decide whether Daniels's refusal to repeat the testimony in open court casts doubt on its veracity. Two: Daniels's credibility at trial, not before the grand jury, is what matters. The jury had what it needed to make an assessment too. California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149, 160–61, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) ; United States v. DiCaro , 772 F.2d 1314, 1325 (7th Cir. 1985). It could judge for itself what to make of Daniels's testimony that he could not remember his grand jury statements. Maybe Daniels testified falsely at the grand jury. Or maybe he lost his nerve when it came time to blame a fellow gang member for the murder in open court. It's hard to see what judges know, and jurors do not, when it comes to deciding whether to credit this grand jury testimony. But what matters is that the jury had the opportunity to observe Daniels's demeanor when he denied any recollection of events and refused even to agree that he had made statements recorded in his testimony.

The same is true of the district court's assessment of the government's other informants. It saw inconsistencies in their testimony that the record does not bear out or that juries are expected to resolve. Take Danyon Dowlen's story. A fellow Disciple, he said Burks told him the following: "[Wright] a bad mother-F. He made it out there. I hit him in his head once and he was still crawling. And he—I hit him again, and he still made it out there." R. 1474 at 184. The district court saw three main issues with this account. One: Wright's girlfriend, Kristine Gaskin, said a "medium height" man shot Wright, but Burks is 6'4". R. 1460 at 45. Two: The shooter hit Wright in C-Ray's "front entryway," not outside the club. Id. Three: The shooter hit Wright in the leg and in the...