United States v. Temple
| Decision Date | 04 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:15CR00230 JAR |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jacobi TEMPLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Thomas S. Rea, Office of U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen (ECF No. 327). On January 6, 2017, Defendant Temple filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Four, Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 224). Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen recommends the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Four, Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), these matters were referred to United States Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen, who filed a Report and Recommendation on July 17, 2017 (ECF No. 327). Defendant Temple filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 31, 2017 (ECF No. 334). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are supported by the evidence and Defendant Temple's objections are not persuasive.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Four, Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 224) be denied. After de novo review of this matter, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [327] is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein.
and Six of the Superseding Indictment [224] is DENIED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE—MOTION TO DISMISS 1
Currently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Four, Five, and Six of the Superseding Indictment ("Motion to Dismiss") (ECF No. 224), filed on behalf of Defendant Jacobi R. Temple (hereinafter "Defendant" or "Temple"). In his Motion to Dismiss, Temple argues that the superseding indictment is multiplicitous in several respects. More specifically, Temple contends that: (1) Count Two2 should be dismissed because it involves the same, single act of firearm possession as charged in Counts Three, Four, and Five; (2) Counts Four and Five should be dismissed as multiplicitous with Count Three because each count relies on the same predicate offense (conspiracy to distribute heroin); and (3) Count Six should be dismissed because it charges the same criminal acts alleged in Count One.
Temple filed a detailed memorandum in support of his Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 224) The Government has filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 266) Temple thereafter filed a reply to the Government's response in opposition. (ECF No. 298) Although the undersigned held several evidentiary hearings on Temple's suppression motions, the parties agreed that no evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve Temple's Motion to Dismiss. The undersigned will issue a separate Report and Recommendation regarding the suppression motions when those motions have been fully briefed and heard.
Having fully considered the parties' arguments and the relevant case law, and for the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny Temple's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF 224)
On May 12, 2015, Temple was charged by criminal complaint with one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (ECF No. 1) On May 13, 2015, the Grand Jury returned a one-count indictment, again charging Temple with one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. (ECF No. 5) On July 15, 2016, the Grand Jury returned a multi-count superseding indictment. The superseding indictment added several, serious charges, as well as two co-defendants—Demante Syms and Samuel Spires.3 (ECF No. 30)
Count One of the superseding indictment charges Temple, Syms, and Spires with conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 846 and 841. Count Two charges Temple, Syms, and Spires with conspiracy to possess one or more firearms, including a Colt .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, in furtherance of the heroin conspiracy charged in Count One. Count Two further alleges, among other things, that: (1) in or around August 2014, the three co-defendants entered into an agreement to distribute heroin in the City of St. Louis; (2) from August 2014 until March 27, 2015, they distributed heroin in the City of St. Louis; and (3) as part of the agreement, each defendant understood that Temple would be armed with a firearm. Count Three alleges that, on or about March 27, 2015, Temple "did knowingly possess, brandish and discharge one or more firearms" in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and in the course of the violation, Temple caused the death of James Lacey. Count Four alleges that, on or about March 27, 2015, Temple "did knowingly possess, brandish and discharge one or more firearms" in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and in the course of the violation, Temple caused the death of Paige Schaefer. Count Five alleges that, on or about March 27, 2015, Temple, Syms, and Spires, acting together, "did knowingly possess, brandish and discharge one or more firearms" in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and in the course of the violation, the defendants caused the death of Tammie Thurmond. Count Six alleges that, on or about April 24, 2015, Temple knowingly and intentionally possessed, with the intent to distribute, heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Counts Three, Four, and Five allege crimes that carry a potential death penalty, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). As a result of that potential punishment, and in consideration of additional factors and with the agreement of the parties, the undersigned designated this matter as a complex case within the parameters of the Speedy Trial Act. (ECF No. 60) On May 31, 2016, the Government filed its notice that it would not seek the death penalty. (ECF No. 125) On October 3, 2016, however, the Government filed an amended notice with the Court, noting that, in view of changed circumstances and additional information, the capital crime review process regarding Temple (but not Syms or Spires) had been re-opened. (ECF No. 177) On November 8, 2016, the Government filed a notice indicating that it would not seek the death penalty against Temple. (ECF No. 192) Counsel for the Government has represented to the Court that the Government's decision relative to the death penalty is now final.
Temple's Motion to Dismiss alleges that various counts in the superseding indictment are multiplicitous. "An indictment is multiplicitous if it charges the same crime in two counts." United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 447 (8th Cir. 2005) ; see also United States v. Sandstrom, 594 F.3d 634, 651 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting same). "The rule against multiplicitous prosecutions is based on the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which ‘protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.’ " United States v. Hinkeldey, 626 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) ). "Where ... an indictment includes more than one count charging the same statutory violation, the question is whether Congress intended the facts underlying each count to constitute a separate unit of prosecution." Id. (citing Chipps, 410 F.3d at 447 ). "A unit of prosecution is ‘the aspect of criminal activity that Congress intended to punish.’ " Id. (quoting Chipps, 410 F.3d at 448 ). "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).
As noted above, the Government voluntarily dismissed Count Two. Thus, Temple's contentions regarding Count Two are now moot.
Temple next contends that Counts Four and Five must be dismissed as multiplicitous with Count Three. The heart of Temple's argument is that, because Counts Three, Four, and Five charge the same statutory violation, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and rest on the same predicate offense, namely conspiracy to distribute heroin as alleged in Count One, the counts are multiplicitous. The Government counters that Counts Three, Four, and Five charge distinct offenses, based on different uses of the same firearm to kill three different persons. The Government argues that Counts Three, Four, and Five satisfy the Blockburger test, and Congress intended for each murder to be punished separately. Thus, according to the Government, using a single drug trafficking conspiracy to support multiple uses of a firearm in furtherance thereof does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
What differentiates Counts Three, Four, and Five is that each count also alleges a distinct use of the firearm to murder a specific individual.4 For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Equity Bank, N.A.
-
United States v. Capone
...of a substantive offense and the conspiracy to commit that offense are distinct, separately indictable charges." United States v. Temple, 261 F.Supp.3d 971, 982 (E.D.Mo. 2017) (citing United States v. Singer, 660 F.2d 1295, 1303 (8th Cir. 1981)(rejecting multiplicity argument and explaining......