United States v. Guyton

Citation37 F.Supp.3d 840
Decision Date31 July 2014
Docket NumberCriminal Action No. 11–271.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Marc GUYTON, et al.

37 F.Supp.3d 840

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Marc GUYTON, et al.

Criminal Action No. 11–271.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed July 31, 2014.


37 F.Supp.3d 844

Sharan E. Lieberman, Andre Jude Lagarde, J. Collin Sims, John F. Murphy, Kevin G. Boitmann, Mark A. Miller, Michael M. Simpson, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Orleans, LA, for United States of America.

Herbert Victor Larson, Jr., Herbert V. Larson, Jr., Attorney at Law, John Wilson Reed, Glass & Reed, Sara A. Johnson, Sara A. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Rachel I. Conner, Rachel I. Conner, Attorney at Law, Stephen H. Shapiro, Stephen H. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, George Chaney, Jr., Jordan Mark Siverd, Federal Public Defender, Steven Lemoine, Steven Lemoine, Attorney at Law, Frank G. Desalvo, Brigid E. Collins, Frank G. Desalvo, APLC, New Orleans, LA, Bruce C. Ashley, II, Bruce C. Ashley, II, Attorney at Law, Michael Gerard Riehlmann, Michael G. Riehlmann, Attorney at Law, Gregory J. Lewis, Jr., Lewis Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, John Herr Musser, IV, Toledano & Herrin, APLC, Robin Elise Schulberg, Robin Elise Schulberg, Attorney at Law, Covington, LA, Michael William Boleware, Law Offices of Michael W. Boleware, Denham Springs, LA, Michael F. Walther, Walther Law, PC, Johnstown, PA, Raymond Porter, Fcc–Low Yazoo City, Yazoo City, MS, Christopher Albert Aberle, Christopher A. Aberle, Attorney at Law, Mandeville, LA, Michael Paul Ciaccio, Michael Paul Ciaccio, Attorney at Law, Gretna, LA, Mark David Plaisance, Mark D. Plaisance, Attorney at Law, Thibodaux, LA, for Marc Guyton, et al.

ORDER AND REASONS

JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate the Plea Agreements of Marc Guyton and Dorian Goins (R. Doc. 770), and a Motion to Vacate the Plea Agreements of Harry Berry and Terrance Henderson (R. Doc. 767). For the following reasons, the former is DENIED and the latter GRANTED IN PART. Harry Berry's plea agreement is hereby VACATED. The plea agreements of Marc Guyton, Dorian Goins, and Terrance Henderson shall remain intact.

BACKGROUND

This case has been pending for approximately 44 months and contains more than 1,000 docket entries. The Court has entertained numerous motions, held multiple evidentiary hearings, and met with counsel on several occasions. The facts are so voluminous, the procedural history so complex, and the legal issues so nuanced that not even the most crafty of law professors could put this to his students. Suffice to say, United States v. Guyton, et al. is no ordinary criminal matter.

Pending before the Court are motions to vacate the plea agreements of four Defendants: Marc Guyton (“Guyton”), Dorian Goins (“Goins”), Harry Berry (“Berry”), and Terrance Henderson (“Henderson”) (at times collectively referred to as the “Pleading Defendants”). The Government alleges the Pleading Defendants breached their individual plea agreements. The Pleading Defendants oppose the motions. The Court discusses the background facts relevant to all Pleading Defendants before addressing the facts germane to each.

I. Background Facts

On October 21, 2011, a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted the Pleading Defendants and ten other individuals for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute one

37 F.Supp.3d 845

kilogram or more of heroin.1 Over the next few years, several defendants pleaded guilty. Trial for the remaining defendants was set for May 13, 2013.

As Trial approached, only eight defendants remained: Guyton, Henderson, Berry, Goins, Ernest Jones (“Jones”), Raymond Porter (“Porter”), Clarence Haines (“Haines”), and Jose Iturres–Bonilla (“Iturres–Bonilla”). On April 24, 2013, the Government offered a “global” plea agreement to the remaining defendants, which required them to stipulate to the same factual basis. This agreement did not require the defendants to cooperate with the Government. The Government withdrew the offer a mere three days later, apparently because the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana would not authorize any plea agreement that did not require cooperation.

Plea negotiations continued. Guyton and Goins pleaded guilty on May 4, 2013 pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements.2 The plea agreements required cooperation with the Government.3 The Court accepted the guilty pleas but deferred acceptance of the plea agreement pending review of the pre-sentence report.

Berry, Henderson, and Jones pleaded guilty on May 10, 2013 pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements. The agreements contained a cooperation addendum identical to the addendum attached to the plea agreements for Guyton and Goins. Again, the Court deferred its decision to accept the plea agreement.

On May 13, 2013, the Government proceeded to trial (the “Trial”) against Porter, Haines, and Iturres–Bonilla (collectively the “Trial Defendants”). Assistant United States Attorneys Sharan Lieberman (“Lieberman”), John Murphy (“Murphy”), Collin Sims (“Sims”), and Bill McSherry (“McSherry”) (collectively the “Trial AUSA's”) represented the Government. Although the Government's witness list included the Pleading Defendants, the Government did not call any of them to testify. Trial concluded on May 23, 2013. A jury found the Trial Defendants guilty on all counts.4

On July 29, 2013, the Government moved to revoke the plea agreements of the Pleading Defendants, arguing that they breached their agreements by failing to cooperate with the Government. The memoranda in support consisted largely of unsubstantiated allegations. Accordingly, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing, which took place over the course of five days.5 The parties have submitted post-

37 F.Supp.3d 846

hearing memoranda, and this matter is now ripe for consideration.

II. Facts Germane to the Pleading Defendants6

Much evidence was adduced over the course of the evidentiary hearing, the vast majority of which consisted of testimony from counsel for the Government and the Pleading Defendants. For purposes of clarity, the Court separates its findings with respect to each Pleading Defendant.

A. Guyton

The Government never directly asked Guyton to testify or to interview with law enforcement. Nor did Guyton ever directly communicate to the Government an unwillingness to honor the cooperation provision in his plea agreement. Rather, the Government's position is based almost exclusively on happenstance conversations between the Trial AUSA's and Guyton's prehearing counsel—Herbert Larson (“Larson”) and Sara Johnson (“Johnson”). The Government relies on six incidents to support its position that Larson and Johnson's communications to the Trial AUSA's constituted a breach of the plea agreement by Guyton himself. The Court addresses each incident separately.

i. The Hallway Conversation

Johnson was present in court on the first day of Trial. The Trial AUSA's did not ask her to attend, nor did Johnson have a scheduled meeting with the Government. Rather, as a young lawyer, Johnson was present solely for the purpose of observing opening statements and improving her advocacy.

While sitting in the gallery of the courtroom, Johnson was informed by Michael Boleware (“Boleware”)—pre-hearing counsel for Berry—that, unbeknownst to her, Guyton was being held in the marshall's office. Johnson proceeded to the marshall's office and was informed by one of the marshalls that Guyton refused to cooperate with the Trial AUSA's. After briefly meeting with Guyton, Johnson returned to the courtroom, hoping to speak with one of the Trial AUSA's.

Johnson intercepted the Trial AUSA's7 during a Trial recess as they were leaving the courtroom (the “Hallway Conversation”). A brief conversation with Lieberman ensued. The two discussed the prospect of Guyton testifying at Trial. At some point, Johnson said something to the effect of, “you're not going to like what he has to say; it's about marijuana.” Johnson testified that she then referred Lieberman to a specific conversation between Haines and Guyton, which had been the subject of a previously-filed motion in limine (the “Marijuana Motion”). Lieberman and Murphy deny that Johnson referenced the Marijuana Motion, instead interpreting Johnson's statement to mean that Guyton would testify that all his interactions with Haines involved marijuana.

ii. The Lafayette Square Conversation

On May 14, 2014—the second day of trial—Johnson had another conversation with Lieberman. This conversation occurred

37 F.Supp.3d 847

in Lafayette Square8 during the lunch hour (the “Lafayette Square Conversation”) and, like the Hallway Conversation, was not planned. The parties have different recollections of how the Lafayette Square Conversation began. Johnson testified that Lieberman requested her to “think about” asking Guyton to testify at Trial. Lieberman testified that she asked Johnson to clarify the Hallway Conversation, specifically, whether Guyton would testify that all his phone calls with Haines involved marijuana. The rest of the Lafayette Square...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • United States v. Guyton, Criminal Action No. 11–271.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...37 F.Supp.3d 840UNITED STATES of Americav.Marc GUYTON, et al.Criminal Action No. 11–271.United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.Signed July 31, Motions granted in part and denied in part. [37 F.Supp.3d 844] Sharan E. Lieberman, Andre Jude Lagarde, J. Collin Sims, John F. Murphy, Kevin ......

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