United States v. Ray
| Decision Date | 23 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-cr-110 (LJL) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LAWRENCE RAY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
LAWRENCE RAY, Defendant.
No. 20-cr-110 (LJL)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 23, 2022
OPINION AND ORDER
LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge
Defendant Lawrence Ray (“Ray” or “Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, to dismiss all counts against him due to insufficient evidence. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a second superseding indictment returned by the grand jury on January 13, 2022, in seventeen counts (the “Second Superseding Indictment”). Dkt. No. 292. Count One charged Ray with racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Count Two charged Ray with extortion conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count Three charged Ray with extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Count Four charged Ray with sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2. Count Five charged Ray with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594. Count Six charged Ray with forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 2. Count Seven charged Ray with forced labor trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590 and 2. Count Eight charged Ray with forced labor conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594. Counts Nine and Ten charged Ray with two counts of use of interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3)(B) and 2. Count Eleven charged Ray with money laundering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (ii), and 2. Counts Twelve to Sixteen charged Ray with tax evasion for each of the years 2015 to 2019 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Count Seventeen charged Ray with committing a violent crime in aid of racketeering (“VICAR”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3).
Trial of the case began on March 10, 2022. Dkt. No. 510. Prior to trial, the Government agreed to dismiss one of the six tax evasion counts, which was then numbered Count Twelve of the Second Superseding Indictment charging tax evasion for the year 2015, and one of the two Travel Act violations, which was then numbered Count Ten of the Second Superseding Indictment charging extortion in violation of the Travel Act. See Dkt. No. 502. During the trial, the Government called eighteen witnesses. Based on the Jury verdict, five of those witnesses can now be characterized as Defendant's victims[1]: Santos Rosario, Felicia Rosario, Yalitza Rosario, Maritza Rosario, and Claudia Drury (“Drury”). Santos Rosario, Felicia Rosario, and Yalitza Rosario are siblings and Maritza Rosario is their mother; Santos Rosario was a classmate of Defendant's daughter, Talia Ray, at Sarah Lawrence College. Six of the witnesses were members of law enforcement: Mark Lubin, a forensic accountant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); Special Agent Kelly Maguire of the FBI, the case agent on the matter; Special Agent Rachel Graves of the Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force; Mathew Frost, a forensic examiner with the FBI; Stephen Flatley of the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team; and Revenue Agent Valeria Catanzaro of the Internal Revenue Service. Four of the Government witnesses were non-victim lay witnesses: Kyle Sliger, an employee of GoDaddy.com; Julie Gonzalez, a physician and classmate of Felicia Rosario, who
testified to Felicia Rosario's request for money from her; Carlos Pagan, a doorman in the building where Defendant resided with his victims; and one of Drury's clients. Finally, the Government called two expert witnesses-Dawn Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist, and Andrew Petersohn, a radio frequency engineer trained in cell-site analysis-and a paralegal from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The defense recalled John B. Minor as a rebuttal expert to Government expert Andrew Petersohn and recalled Glenn Ripa, Esq.
As summarized below, the evidence showed that Defendant unleashed a campaign of terror on his victims, all college classmates of his daughter. He initially befriended them and then, once they were caught in his snare, he steadily groomed them, turned them into his slaves, forced them to engage in labor for his own benefit and the benefit of his relatives, extorted them, and tortured them. He also sex-trafficked one of his victims, Drury.
On April 6, 2022, the Jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Dkt. No. 502. In addition, the Jury found Defendant guilty of the special sentencing factor charged in connection with Count One. See id. at 1. In connection with the count charging VICAR, the Jury also found Defendant guilty of assault in the second degree under New York State Penal Law § 120.05 and menacing in the second degree under New York Penal Law § 120.14. Id. at 4.
At the conclusion of the Government's case, the defense moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, to dismiss each count of the Indictment on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of defendant's guilt. The motion was cursory. At that point, the defense “highlight[ed] just one are[a] of insufficiency.” Tr. 2505. It claimed that the Government introduced insufficient evidence to support that there was a second degree assault, which was one of the predicate crimes charged to support the VICAR count in the indictment, because there
was insufficient testimony establishing physical injury or impairment of physical condition of Ms. Drury. Id. The defense also argued that the second predicate crime alleged to support the VICAR count, misdemeanor menacing under New York law, was not a crime of violence under VICAR. Id. The Court reserved judgment on the motion. Id. at 2506.
On April 4, 2022, at the conclusion of all of the evidence, the defense renewed its Rule 29 motion. Tr. 2768-69. The motion was similarly cursory. The defense noted the one area of insufficiency it had “highlighted” earlier. Tr. 2768. It also addressed what it called “a second area of insufficiency related to the tax counts.” Id. The defense argued that the Government's burden of proof to show that income was taxable for the tax evasion counts also carried with it the burden to show that exceptions do not apply. Id. The defense argued that the Government had not proved that the exception for payments made as restitution for damages for physical injury did not apply. Id. at 2768-69. The Court once again reserved judgment. Id. at 2769.
At the conclusion of trial, the Court invited post-judgment briefing. By letter of June 8, 2022, the defense notified the Court that it did not plan on filing any additional post-trial motions but requested a ruling on the oral Rule 29 motions it made for dismissal due to insufficient evidence. Dkt. No. 565. The Government responded by letter on July 18, 2022. Dkt. No. 575. The defense declined to reply.
On November 1, 2022, the Court invited briefing from the parties on three specific questions related to the VICAR count: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence that Female Victim-1 suffered “physical injury” as defined in New York Penal Law § 9; (2) whether the Court should apply a categorical approach to 18 U.S.C. § 1959, see United States v. Keene, 955 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2020); and (3) if the Court applies a categorical approach to 18 U.S.C. § 1959,
whether the crime of menacing in violation of New York Penal Law § 120.14 is broader than assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Dkt. No. 591. The defense submitted a letter brief on November 8, 2022. Dkt. No. 594. The Government submitted a letter brief in response on November 10, 2022. Dkt. No. 595. The Court held oral argument on November 21, 2022.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A defendant challenging a conviction on sufficiency grounds undertakes a ‘heavy burden.'” United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453, 461 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122, 139 (2d Cir. 2011)). “A judgment of acquittal can be entered ‘only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Espaillet, 380 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2004)). A conviction must be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 105 (2d Cir. 2011). In considering the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict, the evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the Government.” United States v. George, 779 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court must analyze the pieces of evidence “in conjunction, not in isolation.” Persico, 645 F.3d at 104 (quoting United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 45 (2d Cir. 2008)). The Court exercises an “‘exceedingly deferential standard of review,' under which ‘we must analyze the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution' and credit ‘every inference that the jury may have drawn in the government's favor.'” United States v. Liu, 2022 WL 14177192, at *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2022) (quoting United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2008)).
DISCUSSION
The evidence at trial was sufficient for the Jury to reach a verdict of guilty on all counts. Following textbooks that Defendant collected and studied on psychological manipulation, false confessions, and brainwashing, he turned a group of young students-his daughter's college classmates and their siblings-into his slaves. Over a period first of months and then of years, Defendant steadily took over the minds and the bodies of his victims. He induced them to trust him and to believe he was all powerful and all knowing. Having gained their trust and convinced them to accept his lies as their truths, Defendant made these impressionable young individuals doubt their own memories...
To continue reading
Request your trial