United States v. Henning

• Decision Date: 19 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No.: SACR 16-00029-CJC-7
• Citation: 513 F.Supp.3d 1193
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Justin Marques HENNING, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

513 F.Supp.3d 1193

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Justin Marques HENNING, Defendant.

Case No.: SACR 16-00029-CJC-7

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.

Signed January 19, 2021

Jeffrey M. Chemerinsky, Julia L. Reese, AUSA - Office of US Attorney General Crimes Section, Los Angeles, CA, Scott D. Tenley, AUSA - Office of US Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jennifer Leigh Williams, Summa LLP, Reuven L. Cohen, Cohen Williams LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Darrell Cedric Dent.

Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham and Zugman, San Diego, CA, Matthew Powell Fletcher, Law Office of Matthew P Fletcher, Long Beach, CA, for Defendant Robert Wesley Johnson.

James R. Tedford, II, Tedford and Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant Justin Marques Henning.

David J. Kaloyanides, David J.P. Kaloyanides APLC, Chino, CA, for Defendant Evan Kwan Scott.

Carlos L. Juarez, Law Office of Carlos L. Juarez, Riverside, CA, Curtis V. Leftwich, Curt Leftwich APLC, Northridge, CA, Ethan Atticus Balogh, Coleman and Balogh LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Jameson LaForest.

John N. Aquilina, Law Offices of John N. Aquilina, Santa Margarita, CA, for Defendant Jeremy Tillett.

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT JUSTIN MARQUES HENNING FOR VIOLATION OF SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SPEEDY TRIAL ACT (DKT. 1689)

CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I.

The United States Constitution protects our fundamental freedoms and liberties. One of the most important rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to a public and speedy trial. It protects against undue and oppressive incarceration before trial and it allows the accused to defend himself against the criminal charges before evidence becomes lost or destroyed and witnesses’ memories fade. But the Sixth Amendment protects much more than just the rights of the accused. It also protects the rights of all of us. It gives each of us called for jury service a voice in our justice system. And it holds the government accountable to the principles of the Constitution. Without jury trials, power is abused and liberty gives way to tyranny.¹

Given the constitutional importance of a jury trial to our democracy, a court cannot deny an accused his right to a jury trial even if conducting one is difficult. This is true whether the United States is suffering through a national disaster, a terrorist attack, civil unrest, or the coronavirus pandemic that the country and the world are currently facing. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an exception for times of emergency or crisis.

Nevertheless, the United States District Court for the Central District of California suspended jury trials indefinitely during the coronavirus pandemic, believing it is too unsafe to conduct jury trials even if significant safety precautions are in place. Most troubling, the Central District's indefinite suspension has continued for 10 months even though the state court across the street from the federal courthouse in Orange County has conducted over 130 jury trials during the pandemic, and all essential businesses in Orange County have remained open and their employees have continued to work.

Defendant Justin Marques Henning is one of many defendants before this Court who is challenging the Central District's indefinite suspension of jury trials. Mr. Henning believes that the Central District's indefinite suspension violates his constitutional right to a public and speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act. He is correct.

II.

A.

Federal courts in the Central District first closed due to the coronavirus pandemic on March 23, 2020. C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge 20-042, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of Operations Plan (Mar. 19, 2020). They have not reopened for jury trials in the nearly 10 months since. See C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-08, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Phased Reopening of the Court (May 28, 2020) (explaining that jury trials will resume "at a date to be determined"). On August 6, 2020, Chief Judge Philip S. Gutierrez issued an order stating explicitly what had been clear for months—jury trials in the Central District are indefinitely suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic. C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Phased Reopening of the Court (Aug. 6, 2020) ("Until further notice, no jury trials will be conducted in criminal cases.").

Some courthouse operations have continued during the pandemic. For example, from June to December, the grand jury—which has at least 16 members—gathered in person, heard witness testimony, and returned 65 indictments. (See Ex. 1, attached to this order.) Some courts held emergency in-person hearings. However, on December 7, 2020, the Chief Judge, in consultation with the Central District's Executive Committee, and in light of a coronavirus surge in the region, reactivated the Central District's Continuity of Operations Plan ("COOP"). See Order of the Chief Judge 20-179, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of Operations Plan (Dec. 7, 2020). The Chief Judge's order permitted the grand jury to meet one more time, and then suspended the grand jury—for the first time since June—effective December 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. through and including January 8, 2021. On January 7, 2021, the COOP was extended through and including January 29, 2021. Emergency in-person hearings are no longer allowed while the COOP is activated. And although the order states that "[t]he activation of the COOP Plan is necessary to ensure the continuous performance of essential functions and operations of the Court," the most essential function—conducting jury trials—remains suspended indefinitely. Id. at 2.²

Though 10 months have passed since the Central District suspended jury trials, it remains completely uncertain when the Central District will resume them.³ The Chief Judge has stated that "decisions on resuming operations are being made in light of state government orders."⁴ Those orders include California Governor Gavin Newsom's four-tier, color-coded system. That system does not apply to the state judiciary, nor does it restrict essential businesses—in sectors including healthcare, emergency services, food, energy, transportation, and communications—from operating.⁵ Indeed, employees in those sectors have been displaying extraordinary courage and dedication by going to work every day during the pandemic, knowing the risks, while protecting themselves and others as best they can. They refuse to let the coronavirus prevent them from providing vital services and supplying essential goods to the public.

The Governor's tier system applies only to non-essential businesses. That system outlines when and how non-essential businesses may operate during the pandemic by ranking each California county in one of four tiers "based on its test positivity and adjusted case rate." In tier 1, also known as purple or widespread, many non-essential indoor businesses are closed. In tier 2, also known as red or substantial, some non-essential indoor businesses are closed. In tier 3, also known as orange or moderate, some non-essential indoor businesses are open with modifications. In tier 4, also known as yellow or minimal, most non-essential indoor businesses are open with modifications. The Chief Judge has stated that the Central District will start summoning jurors in Orange County once the county reaches tier 3, and that jury trials will begin approximately 7 weeks later because "that's how long it takes to summon jurors." (Article at 1.)⁶

Throughout the pandemic, the government has supported the Central District's indefinite suspension of jury trials. This Court, however, has vehemently opposed it, believing the indefinite suspension is unconstitutional and in violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The Court has five times asked the Chief Judge to summon jurors for jury trials in cases where defendants refuse to waive further time under the Speedy Trial Act. All of the Court's requests—including its request in this case—have been denied.⁷

B.

Mr. Henning was one of 12 defendants charged with committing or attempting to commit numerous jewelry store robberies, most of which were armed, in Orange and Los Angeles counties. In 2017, the Court held a contentious 4-week trial for Mr. Henning and 5 other defendants. (See Dkt. 537 [Third Superseding Indictment].) On September 22, 2017, the jury found Mr. Henning guilty of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, Hobbs Act robbery at Ben Bridge Jeweler in the Del Amo Mall in Torrance, California ("the Del Amo Robbery"), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence during the Del Amo Robbery. (Dkt. 1009 [Verdict Form].) The jury found Mr. Henning not guilty of charges associated with robberies at three other jewelry stores: Rolex Boutique Geary's in Los Angeles, Manya Jewelry in Woodland Hills, and Westime in West Hollywood. (Id. )⁸

Mr. Henning moved to set aside the jury's guilty verdict, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The Court concluded that the government's evidentiary showing—that Mr. Henning was present at two planning meetings for the Del Amo robbery, present in the general vicinity of the robbery, affiliated with those involved in that robbery, and knew that the robbery would occur—was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Dkt. 1126.) Consequently, the Court set aside the jury's guilty verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal on all three counts. (Id. ) In the alternative, the Court granted Mr. Henning a new trial. (Id. ) On November 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal but affirmed the grant of a new trial. (Dkt. 1571.) The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued about a year later. (See Dkt. 1639...