United States v. Frazier
| Decision Date | 06 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:17-cr-00130,3:17-cr-00130 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. [1] JAMES WESLEY FRAZIER, [2] AELIX SANTIAGO, [3] KYLE HEADE, [6] JOEL ALDRIDGE, [7] JAMES HINES, [8] MICHAEL FORRESTER, JR., [10] JAMIE HERN, [12] MICHAEL MYERS, [13] MICHAEL LEVI WEST, [14] ADRIANNA FRAZIER, [15] DEREK LEIGHTON STANLEY, [16] WILLIAM NELPER, [17] WILLIAM BOYLSTON, [18] JASON MEYERHOLZ, [20] JESSIE MARIE DECKER, [21] JAMIE LEE Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
On June 29, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a 75-count Third Superseding Indictment against twenty-one Defendants, who are alleged to be members or associates of the Clarksville, Tennessee Chapter of the Mongols Motorcycle Gang. The charges followed a three-year investigation, during which the Government compiled more than 20,000 pages of documents, including more than 350 reports of investigation by federal agents alone.
In addition to the overarching charge contained in Count 1 alleging Conspiracy to Commit Racketeering Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the charges include: Conspiracy to Distribute and Possession with Intent to Distribute Fifty Grams or More of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering, including Murder and Kidnapping in Aid of Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1); Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in Aid of Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3); Attempted Murder in Aid of Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); Kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, Attempted Robbery and Robbery Affecting Interstate Commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); Conspiracy to Tamper with a Witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) and Witness Tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3); and Causing Death Through the Use of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), and 2. All but one of the Defendants face the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted.
The case is set for trial beginning April 7, 2020, with an estimated duration of three months. In anticipation of that trial, and in accordance with this Court's September 5, 2018 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 585), Defendants have filed numerous motions,1 to which the Government has responded in opposition, and Defendants have replied. Most of those motions can be decided on the papers. Those that cannot are set for oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing.
Several Defendants have filed Motions to Join in Motions filed by other Defendants. These include: (a) Derek L. Stanley's Motion to Join and Adopt Pretrial Motions Filed by the Defendant(Doc. No. 864); (b) James Wesley Frazier's Motion to Adopt and Join Pretrial Motions (Doc. No. 890); (c) Michael Meyers Motion to Join and Adopt Pretrial Motions Filed by the Defendants (Doc. No. 880); and (d) Joel Aldridge's Motion to Join and Adopt Pretrial Motions Filed by Co-Defendants (Doc. No. 889). Without objection from the Government, those Motions are GRANTED.
However, the Court will limit its discussion to the facts underlying the original motion even though the allegations against a joining Defendant may be different. The onus is on the parties, not the Court to formulate and develop arguments. See United States v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996) ().
Frazier, Aelix Santiago, Aldridge, James Hines, and William Boylston have each filed a motion to increase the number of peremptory challenges. Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that in a non-capital felony case, "the government is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year." Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(b). The rule goes on to provide that "the court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly." Id. A district court's decision regarding peremptory challenges is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, so long as it "[c]omplies with the minimum requirements of Rule 24[.]" United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 435 (6th Cir. 1999).
Pursuant to Rule 24(b), Aldridge requests that the Court allow defendants, collectively, a total of twenty-five peremptory challenges and the government twelve. Santiago requests defense peremptory challenges be increased to a total of twenty collectively, but does not say whether the Government should receive a proportionate increase. Boylston requests that the Court increase each defendant's peremptory challenges to twenty and that they be exercised separately. Finally, Frazier and Hines request additional peremptory challenges, but do not request a specific number of additional challenges.
The number of peremptory challenges requested is a moving target, however. In their reply brief, Defendants jointly request an "Order granting each defendant a minimum of 20 peremptory challenges to be exercised individually (not jointly) and without consultation with other defendants." (Doc. No. 976 at 3).
It has been said that you get in life what you have the courage to ask for. But requests must be grounded in reality for them to become true. As it now stands, sixteen Defendants are slated for trial. If the Court's math is correct, the figures proposed in the reply brief would result in 320 peremptory challenges for Defendants alone. If proportionality under the Rule is maintained, the Government would be allowed 198 peremptory challenges, and the total number would rise to 518. The Court cannot even conceive of a case where that amount of challenges would be warranted, and it is certainly not warranted here where the entire summoned jury pool is likely to be between 300 and 400 prospective jurors.2
As for individual versus joint exercise, Defendants make cogent arguments for individual exercise of their challenges, including that each Defendant has a different background and personal history; several Defendants are charged with crimes that may elicit strong reactions, passions or prejudices by members of the jury venire; and each lawyer is tasked with guarding the interest and constitutional rights of his or her individual client. As for whether the number of peremptory challenges should be proportionately increased for the Government, no arguments have been raised by the Defendants, other than to note that Rule 24 does not specifically require it and "[t]his Court has the discretion to increase the number of peremptory challenges as it sees fit (proportionally or not)[.]" (Doc. No. 976 at 3).
Given all this, and assuming at least five or so Defendants proceed to trial, the Motions for Additional Peremptory Challenges (Doc. Nos. 833, 851, 857, 872 & 875) are hereby GRANTED, although the Court will leave for later the precise number of additional challenges. Whatever the number, the Government will be accorded additional peremptory challenges, so as to keep intact the ratio anticipated by Rule 24(b).
Some Defendants have filed Motions for Daily Trial Transcripts. "[T]he decision to supply daily transcripts to indigent defendants is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge." United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1181 (2d Cir. 1984). Indeed, while the Guide to Judicial Policy states that "[t]he furnishing of accelerated transcript services in criminal proceedings should be discouraged," it also "recogniz[es] that there are some circumstances in which such transcript services are necessary and required by either the prosecution or the defense." Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7, Ch. 3, § 320.30.20.
Though not addressing daily transcripts, the Supreme Court in Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1976) stated that "Griffin v. Illinois, [51 U.S. 12 (1956)] and its progeny establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners." The Court in Britt also observed that "[w]hile the outer limits of that principle are not clear," it "has identified two factors that are relevant to the determination of need: (1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions as a transcript." Id.
Given the anticipated length of the trial, the nature, scope and breadth of the charges, the number of witnesses likely to be called including cooperating witnesses, the voluminous discovery that has been provided, and that many of Defendants are represented by one lawyer, the Court finds that realtime (rough) transcripts may prove to be invaluable for some witnesses. Certainly official transcripts3 are not necessary for most witnesses, and may not be needed for any witnesses because, just as in Darden, the Court will not require citation to the official transcripts when arguments (written or oral) are presented during trial. Instead, counsel may simply refer to the rough transcripts. To the extent that counsel orders rough transcripts of testimony, CJA vouchers for those transcripts shall be submitted to the Court for its approval.
Based on the foregoing, the Motions for Daily Transcripts filed by Frazier (Doc. No. 845), Santiago (Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial