United States v. Frazier
| Docket Number | 3:17-cr-00130 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES WESLEY FRAZIER, AELIX SANTIAGO, MICHAEL FORRESTER, JR., JAMIE HERN, DEREK LEIGHTON STANLEY, JASON MEYERHOLZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
After a 35-day trial held over the course of three and one-half months during which close to 100 witnesses testified and more than 1,200 documents were introduced, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the majority of counts against each of the above-named Defendants. Chief among those was a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et. seq., charge brought against James Frazier, Aelix Santiago, Michael Forrester Jr., Jamie Hern, William Boylston and Jason Meyerholz for their role in the Clarksville, Tennessee chapter of the Mongols Motor Club (“Mongols” or “Mongols Nation”). In addition to the RICO conspiracy alleged in Count One, several of the trial Defendants were convicted of the drug conspiracy alleged in Count Two and the money laundering conspiracy alleged in Count Three, including Derek Stanley who was not a Mongols member. Apart from the conspiracy counts, each Defendant was convicted of certain substantive crimes, including murder, attempted murder assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, witness tampering, money laundering, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, and distribution of methamphetamine.
Now before the Court are Motions for a New Trial and/or Motions for Judgment of Acquittal filed by all trial Defendants except William Boylston.[1] (Doc. Nos. 2250, 2457, 2463, 2464, 2465, 2466, 2467, 24682472, 2473, 2476, 2477, 2478). To address the motions,[2] the Court begins by setting forth the appropriate standard of review, followed by a somewhat detailed overview of the facts presented at trial. Next, the Court will discuss arguments raised in relation to how the trial was conducted and situations that occurred during trial. Thereafter, and because there is significant overlap, the Court discusses the RICO count as to Frazier, Santiago, Forrester, Hern, Stanley and Meyerholz followed by a discussion of the arguments raised by Stanley and Frazier in relation to the drug conspiracy alleged in Count Two. Finally, the Court discusses the arguments raised by Defendants in relation to specific counts.
Motions for judgment of acquittal after the close of the government's case-in-chief, after the close of all of the evidence, and after the return of a verdict are all governed by Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In determining whether such a motion should be granted, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'” United States v. Fisher, 648 F.3d 442, 450 (6th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
“Under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, a reviewing court does ‘not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury.'” Id. (citation omitted). “‘Substantial and competent circumstantial evidence by itself may support a verdict and need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir. 2004)). Given this, a defendant moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 bears a “very heavy burden.” United States v. Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684, 691 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Walls, 293 F.3d 959, 967 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 424 (6th Cir. 2000)).
“A motion for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure may be premised upon the argument that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578, 592 (6th Cir. 2007). “Generally, such motions are granted only . . . ‘where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.'” Id. at 592-93.
“In deciding Rule 33 motions based on the manifest weight of the evidence, ... a district judge ‘may sit as a thirteenth juror' and consider the evidence to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.'” United States v. Monoz, 605 F.3d 359, 373 n.9 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In this regard, the trial judge may assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence. United States v. Reeves, 636 Fed.Appx. 350, 353 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1998). Still, and while “[t]he decision of whether to grant a new trial is committed to the ‘sound discretion of the trial judge, ... this discretion should be exercised ‘only in extraordinary circumstance[s].'” United States v. Canal Barge Co., 631 F.3d 347, 357 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Even though trial judges are to use their “sound discretion” when acting in the role of a thirteenth juror, the Sixth Circuit has recently stated that, in exercising that discretion, “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. On the other hand, the court must respect the role of the jury and ensure that evidence-supported convictions are upheld.
United States v. Burks, 974 F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 2020).
With the foregoing standards in mind, the Court sets forth in narrative fashion the facts a reasonable jury could find based upon the evidence presented at trial.
The Mongols is an all male, all white and Hispanic 1% motorcycle club, making it among the small minority of motorcycle clubs that openly flout the law by engaging in criminal acts as a part of its business. Members see the club as a lifetime brotherhood and commonly use slogans and mottos such as “Mongols Forever, Forever Mongols,” “Respect Few, Fear None,” and “Mongols Until Death or Prison.” The club even has its own set of “commandments” and a fight song.
When participating in club activities, Mongols members are easily identified by the black leather vests (or “cuts”) they wear. The back of the vest of a “full-patch” member contains an embroidered top “rocker” that says “Mongols” in black lettering over a white background, a bottom “rocker” that identifies the chapter he belongs to with the same contrasting colors, and a center patch consisting of a caricature of a Genghis Khan-type figure wearing sunglasses and riding a chopper motorcycle.[4] The front of the vest is also adorned with additional patches. Among others, these patches indicate the office (if any) the member holds; whether he is a founding member; “in memory of” patches for fallen brothers; notable club runs; “P” patches worn by prospects; and, ubiquitously, 1%'er diamond patches and initialisms, such as “MFFM.”
Started in the Los Angeles, California area in 1969, the Mongols has chapters across the country and internationally. Hierarchically, the organization is led by the “Mother Chapter” in Southern California whose members include national officers. The Mother Chapter has authority over all chapters and members, including resolving disputes. Indeed, individuals who want to join the Mongols submit an application to the Mother Chapter. Upon joining, members are then responsible for paying dues and fees to the Mother Chapter.
Below the Mother Chapter are regional officers who are also members of individual chapters. Each chapter, in turn, has officers that generally include a President, Vice President, Secretary Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms. Those officers oversee the local club members. Usually, one cannot become a full-fledged member of the Mongols until he has been a prospect for at least a year, during which time he wears a vest with a “P” on it. Underneath prospects are “hang-arounds,” meaning individuals who are getting a feel for what the organization is about and whether they want to be a part of it. The chapter members, too, get to size-up the prospects and hang-arounds. Prospects and hang-arounds are pretty much at the beck-and-call of fully patched members during this period.
In early 2015, there were no Mongols chapters in Tennessee. This started to change that spring when several members and prospects of the Sin City Desciples [sic] (“Sin City”) began discussing joining the Mongols and forming a chapter in Clarksville with Santiago as the lead proponent.[5] Extracts from his phone at the time showed that he had downloaded the Mongols commandments by the end of April 2015 and that at least he, Frazier and Hern had been prospecting for the Mongols by that time. (Ex. No. 982 at 20, 36-37).
At a graduation barbecue for JoJo Lauati's son held around the 2015 Memorial Day attended by Frazier, Hern, the Daye brothers (Justin and James), Santiago, Alexsandro Nieves, and others discussed breaking away from their former clubs and making a wholesale move to the Mongols. This was in no small part due to the presence of JoJo's husband Tipela Lauati who lived in California the majority of the year because he was a full-patched member of the Harbor Chapter of the Mongols but agreed to serve as a sponsor or “patch daddy” for the Clarksville Chapter. At the party, photographs were taken and social security numbers were recorded so that they could be later sent to California as a part of the membership process. Nieves was so psyched by the discussions that, the following morning, he went to Appleton Harley-Davidson to trade in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial