United States v. Montgomery
Decision Date | 02 March 2020 |
Docket Number | 2:14-cr-00205 |
Citation | 442 F.Supp.3d 875 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Price MONTGOMERY and James Perrin, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Gregory J. Nescott, Rebecca Ross Haywood, Shaun E. Sweeney, Troy Rivetti, Ross E. Lenhardt, Lee J. Karl, Heidi M. Grogan, United States Attorney's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America.
Douglas Sughrue, Sughrue Law, Pittsburgh, PA, Jay T. McCamic, McCamic Law Firm, PLLC, Wheeling, WV, for Defendant Price Montgomery.
Michael J. DeRiso, DeRiso & DeRiso, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant James Perrin USMS 35370068.
In November 2018, a jury found Price Montgomery and James Perrin guilty of all charges alleged against them in a Second Superseding Indictment. For both Montgomery and Perrin, those charges included unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After the jury's verdict, but before the Court could sentence Montgomery and Perrin, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). Rehaif interpreted § 922(g) to include a new element—that the defendant knew he belonged to a class of people who could not lawfully possess a firearm. Since that was not the law at the time of Montgomery and Perrin's trial, the Court had not instructed the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that both men knew their prohibited status. To the contrary, the Court affirmatively instructed the jury that it did not need to find that Montgomery and Perrin knew their prohibited status to convict under § 922(g)(1).
Both now move for a new trial on their § 922(g)(1) counts based on Rehaif . To uphold Montgomery and Perrin's conviction, this Court would need to look at evidence the jury never saw and then apply that evidence to an element the jury never considered. That is something the Court cannot do. For the reasons that follow, a new trial on the § 922(g)(1) counts is necessary. Montgomery and Perrin's Motions (ECF Nos. 737 and 745), are GRANTED.
In April 2016, a federal grand jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment against Price Montgomery, James Perrin, and two (2) other co-defendants. (ECF No. 153.) The top line charges were among some of the most serious criminal offenses the United States can bring. The United States alleged that Montgomery and Perrin orchestrated a multi-state heroin distribution conspiracy. And even more serious, the United States alleged that Montgomery murdered Tina Crawford, a federal witness, as she left her Pittsburgh home to meet with federal prosecutors about that drug conspiracy. (Id. at 12–14.)
Also among Montgomery and Perrin's alleged offenses were unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) —Count III against Perrin and Count IV against Montgomery. (Id. at 3–5.) The United States alleged that both Montgomery and Perrin fell into § 922(g)(1)'s category of individuals who could not lawfully possess a firearm, because both had prior felony convictions. (Id. ) Only the § 922(g)(1) charges—Counts III and IV—are at issue today, so the Court's recitation of the facts relates only to those counts.
The case against Montgomery and Perrin went to trial, with each represented by his own counsel. Shortly before the trial began, Montgomery, Perrin, and the United States filed their joint stipulations. (Joint Stipulation, ECF No. 472.) Two (2) of the joint stipulations related to Montgomery and Perrin's § 922(g)(1) charges. (Id. at 1.) In short, the parties stipulated that all the firearms referenced in Counts III and IV were manufactured outside of Pennsylvania; that both defendants had prior felony convictions; and that neither had his right to possess a firearm restored before the date alleged in the Second Superseding Indictment. (Id. ) The effect of the stipulation was to prevent the United States from introducing any evidence about Montgomery and Perrin's past convictions beyond what was mentioned in the stipulation. For the § 922(g)(1) counts, then, the brunt of the United States' evidence at trial would relate to whether Montgomery and Perrin knowingly possessed the firearms.
At trial, the United States did just that, introducing evidence that it believed proved that both Perrin and Montgomery knowingly possessed the firearms alleged in the Second Superseding Indictment. The United States did not, however, offer any evidence related to Montgomery and Perrin's past convictions. Instead, as the parties agreed, the United States read the following stipulation to the jury during its case-in-chief:
Neither Montgomery nor Perrin presented any evidence to rebut the United States' case-in-chief. Instead, both defendants made oral motions for judgment of acquittal on all counts, including the § 922(g)(1) charges. (Id. at 200:7–213:22.) The Court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the United States, denied both oral motions. (Id. at 213:23–219:21.) Montgomery then rested. (Id. at 227:9–18.) Followed by Perrin. (Id. at 227:21–23.)
After the parties rested, the Court went over the proposed final jury instructions with counsel. Neither defendant objected to the Court's proposed instructions as to Count III or IV. (Id. at 230:7–253:5.) The parties elected to have the Court instruct the jury before closing arguments. (ECF No. 695, at 21:17–22:15.) As to Counts III and IV, the Court instructed the jury as follows:
(Id. at 68:7–71:1 (emphasis added).)
The parties then gave their closing arguments and the jury began its deliberations. On November 13, 2018, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts against Montgomery and Perrin, including the § 922(g)(1) charges at Counts III and IV.
A little over seven (7) months after the jury's verdict the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Rehaif which interpreted the elements in § 922(g). At...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Zareck
... ... at ... 2194. Thus, Rehaif announced a “new” ... rule. See U.S. v. Whit mire, Crim. No. 17-34, 2020 ... WL 4333480, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2020) (determining, ... Rehaif announced a “new” rule); U.S ... v. Montgomery, 442 F.Supp.3d 875, 884 (W.D. Pa. 2020), ... as amended (Mar. 4, 2020) (stating, Rehaif set forth ... a “new rule for the conduct of criminal ... prosecutions”) ... Generally, a new rule imposed by the Supreme Court is not to ... be applied retroactively to ... ...
-
United States v. Wood
...Crim. No. 17-34, 2020 WL 4333480, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2020) (determining, Rehaif announced a "new" rule); U.S. v. Montgomery, 442 F.Supp.3d 875, 884 (W.D. Pa. 2020), as amended (Mar. 4, 2020) (stating, Rehaif set forth a "new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions"). Generally,......
-
United States v. Battle, Criminal No. 16-017
...Crim. No. 17-34, 2020 WL 4333480, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2020) (determining, Rehaif announced a "new" rule); U.S. v. Montgomery, 442 F.Supp.3d 875, 884 (W.D. Pa. 2020), as amended (Mar. 4, 2020) (stating, Rehaif set forth a "new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions"). 3. Rehaif ......
-
Rena Individually C. ex rel. A.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist.
... ... v. COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1914 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Filed March 5, 2020 442 F.Supp.3d 861 David J. Berney, ... ...