United States v. Spellman
| Decision Date | 15 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 8:21-CR-136 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE L. SPELLMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
On September 30, 2022, the jury convicted Defendant Prince L Spellman of possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing an illegal substance; possession of a firearm during and in relation to, and in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime; and of felon in possession of a firearm. Filing 153 (text minute entry); Filing 166. This matter is before the Court on Spellman's Motion for a New Trial. Filing 171. The Government opposes Spellman's Motion. Filing 178. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Spellman's Motion.
On March 8, 2021, police officers responded to calls about shots being fired around the 2800 block of Fort Street in Omaha, Nebraska. 911 operators received multiple calls related to the shooting with varying descriptions of a suspect vehicle. Officers at the scene observed a vehicle- a silver Jeep Cherokee-generally matching the description of the suspect vehicle and ran the plate number, which was WRF761. The search of the plate number revealed that the jeep belonged to Lisa Gunter of the 2800 block of North 30th Street. Officers decided not to stop the vehicle because the driving behavior was normal and because of the different descriptions they had received of the suspect vehicle.
After running the jeep's plate, law enforcement officers questioned three witnesses, who each confidently identified the suspect vehicle as a silver Jeep Cherokee and provided the partial license plate number “WRX.” Officers verified the type of jeep the witnesses saw using pictures of jeeps on a phone.
The next day, Omaha Police Detective Ricardo Martinez, who had listened to the radio traffic of the shots-fired incident, was driving in an unmarked vehicle. He observed a silver Jeep Cherokee with the license plate number WRF761 and, based on what he remembered from the prior night's radio traffic, began to follow it. Detective Martinez radioed officers in marked police vehicles, who initiated a traffic stop of the Jeep Cherokee. Spellman, the driver, and two other occupants exited the jeep. A subsequent search uncovered narcotics on Spellman's person and in the jeep, as well as a pink firearm on the rear floor of the jeep behind the driver's seat.
On May 20, 2021, a grand jury returned a three-count Indictment against Spellman for drug-trafficking and firearm offenses. Filing 1. A few weeks later, Spellman retained counsel. Filing 14. Spellman then filed a Motion to Suppress on August 17, 2021. Filing 26. The Motion to Suppress requested that the Court suppress all physical evidence seized during the March 9, 2021, traffic stop. Filing 27 at 1-4. According to Spellman, officers pulled him over based on an unsubstantiated hunch that he or his vehicle was involved in the shots-fired incident on March 8, 2021. Filing 27 at 3. United States Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis held an evidentiary hearing on Spellman's Motion to Suppress and later recommended to the undersigned judge that it be denied. Filing 61. The undersigned judge adopted Magistrate Judge Bazis's Findings and Recommendation in its entirety, concluding that there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of Spellman's vehicle; rejecting Spellman's contention that officers gave false testimony at the evidentiary hearing; and declining Spellman's request for a supplemental hearing to present new evidence about an alleged “wiretap.” Filing 75 at 4-9.
On August 19, 2022, Spellman's counsel moved to withdraw as his attorney. Filing 79. During a hearing, Spellman indicated that he wanted to represent himself in this case. Filing 82 (audio file); Filing 84 (audio file). Magistrate Judge Bazis granted the request and allowed Spellman's counsel to withdraw. Filing 83 (text minute entry). The Court then held a hearing pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), on September 12, 2022, to determine whether Spellman knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Filing 89 (text minute entry). At the hearing, the Court inquired into Spellman's familiarity with the various rules governing criminal cases, warned him that he was taking a serious risk, and admonished that a seasoned attorney would likely represent him far better than he could represent himself. See generally Filing 90 at 1-2. After Spellman rejected the Court's offer to appoint a member of the Federal Public Defender's office to represent him, the Court entered an Order finding that Spellman knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and appointing a member of the Federal Public Defender's office to serve as standby counsel. Filing 90 at 1-2. Spellman, however, agreed to allow the Court to appoint stand-by counsel to assist him at trial. The Court made clear that stand-by counsel would not be allowed to make arguments or examine witnesses at trial given Spellman had decided to represent himself at trial, but that Spellman could privately consult with stand-by counsel before and during trial.[1]
This case proceeded to trial on the allegations contained in the three-count Second Superseding Indictment against Spellman. Filing 143 (text minute entry). On September 20, 2022, the day before trial, and throughout trial, Spellman filed several ex parte motions for subpoenas requesting various documents and the appearance of a witness. See, e.g., Filing 96 (requesting a subpoena for cell phone records for March 8th and 9th of 2021 from a phone company); Filing 125 (requesting a subpoena for an individual who would testify that Spellman was uninvolved in the shots-fired incident). Magistrate Judge Bazis granted several of these motions, Filing 103; Filing 124; Filing 127; Filing 144; however, the undersigned quashed others as improper during trial. Upon reviewing these documents, the Court discussed with Spellman out of the hearing of the jury that given the timing, the subpoenas would likely not be returned and no documents would be provided. The Court asked Spellman if he wished to proceed with trial even if he did not receive any additional documents, and Spellman stated he wished to proceed and did not want to seek a continuance. The Court also noted on the record that the majority (and potentially all) documents that Spellman sought with these late-filed subpoenas had already been provided to Spellman's previous counsel during discovery. Spellman acknowledged he had a jump drive device with discovery documents from his prior counsel.
At trial, Spellman sought to question several of the Government's witnesses about the March 8, 2021, shots-fired incident and posed inquiries about “certified” records of reports from the Government's experts. Many of Spellman's questions related to how officers identified the jeep during the shots-fired incident, which was one of the issues raised in his Motion to Suppress. Although the Court generously gave Spellman wide latitude when questioning witnesses, it sustained several relevancy objections by the Government to avoid needlessly relitigating the suppression issue and to focus on the issues relevant to determining Spellman's guilt or innocence for the charged offenses.
On September 29, 2022, the parties delivered closing statements and turned the case over to the jury for deliberation. Filing 151 (text minute entry). During their deliberations, the jury posed several questions to the Court. In response to the jury's third question, which seemingly suggested that the jury had come to a standstill on Counts II and III regarding the term “knowingly,” the Court instructed the jury about the term and read an Allen charge. Filing 161 at 1-2.
On September 30, 2022, the jury found Spellman guilty on all three counts in the Second Superseding Indictment. Filing 153 (text minute entry); Filing 166. Spellman filed his Motion for a New Trial on October 11, 2022, Filing 171, an addendum six days later, Filing 175, and a supplement to the addendum on October 17, 2022, Filing 177.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a defendant to move the court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). “The decision to grant a Rule 33 motion is within the sound discretion of the District Court .... though this broad discretion should be exercised sparingly and with caution.” United States v. Huyck, 849 F.3d 432, 444 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A district court abuses its discretion “if it fails to consider a factor that should have been given significant weight, considers and gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in considering and weighing only proper factors.” Id. (quoting United States v. Amaya, 731 F.3d 761, 764 (8th Cir. 2013)).
Motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored. See United States v. Glinn, 965 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2020). “To warrant a new trial based on previously unavailable evidence, [the movant] must demonstrate the following: ‘(1) the evidence is in fact newly discovered since trial; (2) diligence on his part [in identifying the evidence]; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material to the issues involved; and (5) it is probable that the new evidence would produce an acquittal at the new trial.'” United States v. Erickson, 999 F.3d 622, 631 (8th Cir. 2021) () (quoting United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial