United States v. Johnson, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:13-cr-00091-7
Decision Date | 09 June 2017 |
Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:13-cr-00091-7,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:13-cr-00091-4 |
Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMAA I. JOHNSON & DARRELL E. GILLESPIE, Defendants. |
Pending before the Court are Defendant Jamaa Johnson's ("Johnson") Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial, (ECF No. 775), and Supplemental Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial, (ECF No. 801). Also before the Court are Defendant Darrell Gillespie's ("Gillespie") Motion for New Trial, (ECF No. 765), and Supplemental Motion[ ] for New Trial or Judgment of Acquittal, (ECF No. 815). For the reasons provided herein, the Court DENIES the motions.
A Grand Jury sitting in Charleston, West Virginia, charged both Johnson and Gillespie on April 30, 2014, with eight counts of criminal conduct in a fourteen-count Fifth Superseding Indictment ("the Indictment"), (ECF No. 418). The charges were based on an alleged conspiracy occurring over a ten-month period in 2011 and 2012 in Kanawha County and McDowell County, West Virginia, and elsewhere, to unlawfully obtain from drug dealers personal property, including controlled substances, firearms, and money, "by means of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of immediate injury . . . ." (Id. at 1-2.) Trial commenced on January 13, 2015. (ECF No. 749.)
Based on the Indictment, (ECF No. 418), the jury returned a verdict on January 28, 2015, finding Johnson guilty of the following charges:
(ECF No. 658.) Accordingly, the Court adjudged Johnson guilty on Counts One, Two, and Thirteen of the Indictment. (ECF No. 727 at 36.) The jury acquitted Johnson as to Counts Three, Four, Seven, Eight, and Nine of the Indictment. (Id.)
The jury's verdict found Gillespie guilty of the following charges:
(See ECF No. 658.) Accordingly, the Court adjudged Gillespie guilty on Counts One, Two, Five, Six, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, and Fourteen of the Indictment. (ECF No. 727 at 35-36.) Trial concluded on January 28, 2015. (Id. at 39.)
After receiving new counsel, Johnson's deadline to file post-trial motions was extended to July 20, 2015. (ECF No. 762.) Johnson filed his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial on July 20, 2015. (ECF No. 775.) The Government responded to the motion on August 10, 2015. (ECF No. 777.) Subsequently, the Court granted Johnson's Motion to Hold in Abeyance Further Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Ruling. (ECF No. 788.) Following the issuance of the Supreme Court's opinion in Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016), Johnson filed his Supplemental Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for New Trial on July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 801.) The Government responded to the motion on August 11, 2016, (ECF No. 816), and Johnson filed a reply on August 18, 2016, (ECF No. 818).
After granting no less than five extensions of the deadline to file post-trial motions, the Court ordered Gillespie to file post-trial motions forthwith on June 23, 2015. (ECF No. 764.) Gillespie filed his Motion for New Trial on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 765.) The Government responded to the motion on July 14, 2015. (ECF No. 773.) Subsequently, the Court granted Gillespie's Motion for Stay or Abeyance and continued generally Gillespie's sentencing pending the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor. (ECF No. 787.) Following the issuance of that decision, Gillespie filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Post-Trial Motions, (ECF No. 806), which the Court granted. (ECF No. 811.) In accordance with that order, Gillespie filed his Supplemental Motion for New Trial or Judgment of Acquittal on July 27, 2016, (ECF No. 815), and the Government responded on August 26, 2016, (ECF No. 821).
The Court held an initial hearing on the motions on August 30, 2016, during which the Court ordered both Defendants Johnson and Gillespie to file additional briefing addressing the following four issues:
(ECF Nos. 826, 827.) On September 27, 2016, Johnson, Gillespie, and the United States all filed their supplemental memoranda. (ECF Nos. 833, 834, 835, 836.) The Court held a final motions hearing on October 7, 2016, to address the arguments contained in the pending motions. (ECF Nos. 837, 838.) The motions are fully briefed and argued and are ripe for adjudication.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 directs a court, upon a defendant's motion after the close of evidence and before submission to the jury, to "enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Nevertheless, "[a] defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later," regardless of whether the defendant previously moved for a judgment of acquittal before the case was submitted to the jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(1), (3). The court must determine whether "the jury's verdict is supported by 'substantial evidence,' that is, 'evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). See also United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 763 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2010)).
To determine whether a defendant meets the "heavy burden" provided under the rule, the question becomes whether "any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Hickman, 626 F.3d at 763 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 166 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 977). The court must "view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government," keeping in mind that "the jury . . . weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented." McLean, 715 F.3d at 137 (quoting Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862). If multiple interpretations can be reasonably deduced from the evidence, "the jury decides which interpretation to believe." See id. (citing Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862). Reversal of a conviction is traditionally required when, regardless of proper jury instructions, "no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 (1979) (citations omitted).
"Upon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). See also United States v. Souder, 436 F. App'x 280, 289 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 860 (4th Cir. 1992)). "When the motion attacks the weight of the evidence, the court's authority is much broader than when it is deciding a motion to acquit on the ground of insufficient evidence." United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1485 (4th Cir. 1985). Unlike a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, a Rule 33 motion does not require the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and the court "may evaluate the credibility of the witnesses." See id.; Campbell, 977 F.2d at 860. Ultimately, a new trial is required "[w]hen...
To continue reading
Request your trial