United States v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-153 SECTION: "E" (4) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILIPS THOMPSON, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are motions by the Defendants in this criminal matter: (1) Philips Thompson's re-urged motion to suppress made during his trial and his post-trial Renewed Motion to Suppress and for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial;1 (2) Akari Williams' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or New Trial;2 and (3) Kerry Lirette's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Ruling on the Motion to Suppress Evidence.3 The Government opposes these motions.4
On July 25, 2014, Defendants Akari Williams and Kerry Lirette, Jr. were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.5 On February 27, 2015, a superseding indictment was filed naming as Defendants Akari Williams, Kerry Lirette, Jr., and Philips Thompson. The superseding indictment charges all three defendants with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.6 The superseding indictment also charges Thompson withdistribution of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and Williams and Lirette with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The Court granted a motion to sever the trial of Lirette from the other two co-defendants.7
On February 23, 2016, Thompson filed a motion to suppress all evidence, and any fruits thereof, obtained (1) through the May 27, 2014, search of a package, and (2) through the July 22, 2014, seizure of Thompson's cell phone.8 On May 2, 2016, Lirette moved to adopt Thompson's motion but only with respect to the May 27, 2014 package search.9 The Court held a suppression hearing on May 4, 2016.10 On June 27, 2016, the Court issued its Order and Reasons denying the motions to suppress.11
During the trial, Thompson orally reurged his motion to suppress. At that time Williams' counsel attempted to join Thompson's renewed motion to suppress. After a four day jury trial,12 Thompson and Williams were convicted as to all counts by jury verdict dated November 10, 2016.13 On December 19, 2016, Thompson filed his Renewed Motion to Suppress and for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial.14 On December 20, 2016, Williams filed his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or New Trial.15 On March 27, 2017, Lirette filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court's Ruling on the Motion to Suppress Evidence.16 On January 23, 2017, the Government filed its response in opposition as toall three Defendants' motions.17 The Court held oral argument on the Defendants' motions on March 22, 2017.18
A motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 "is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."19 When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must determine whether "a rational jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the offense to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt."20 The court determines "only whether the jury made a rational decision, not whether its verdict was correct on the issue of guilt or innocence."21 "[I]f the fact finder was presented with sufficient evidence to support the verdict reached, that verdict must be upheld."22 23
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires."24 "The power to grant a new trial should be exercised infrequently by district courts, unless warranted by exceptional circumstances."25 As such, motions for a new trial must be "based either on the grounds that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or that some error was committed by the court or the prosecution which substantially affect[ed] the rights of the accused."26 An error substantially affects the rights of the accused if "it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings."27
The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: (1) all searches and seizures must be reasonable, and (2) "[a] warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity."28 "Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable."29 The exclusionary rule forbids the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.30 The rule prohibits such use "not because the evidence is not probative, or to chastise errant law officers or to benefit the accused, but to compel respect for the guaranty of the Fourth Amendment 'in the only effectively available way—by removingthe incentive to disregard it.'"31 Accordingly, "where suppression fails to yield 'appreciable deterrence,' exclusion is 'clearly . . . unwarranted.'"32
As a general rule, the proponent of a motion to suppress must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence in question was obtained in violation of his or her Fourth Amendment rights.33 In the case of a warrantless search or seizure, the burden shifts to the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its actions were constitutional.34
The standard for a motion for reconsideration in the criminal arena is not well-established in the Federal Rules. Nevertheless, it is well established that "a district court's authority to consider anew a suppression motion previously denied is within its sound judicial discretion."35 Another federal district court in Louisiana, relying on decisions in other circuits, found that a motion for reconsideration can be made on three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law that has occurred since the Court's earlier ruling; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent a manifest injustice.36
On February 23, 2016, Thompson filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all evidence, and any fruits thereof, obtained (1) through the May 27, 2014 search of a package, and (2) through the July 22, 2014, seizure of his cell phone.37 On May 2, 2017, Lirette adopted Thompson's motion to suppress with respect to the May 27, 2014 package search.38 On May 5, 2016, Lirette filed a Memorandum of Law with respect to his standing to join the motion to suppress.39 On June 27, 2016, the Court issued its Order and Reasons denying the motions to suppress.40
Following the presentation of the Government's evidence, and again after the close of the defense's case, Thompson re-urged his suppression motion. Although Williams did not file a pretrial motion to suppress, Williams' counsel, on the record, attempted to join Thompson's renewed motion to suppress. The Court deferred ruling on Thompson's renewed motion to suppress until after the jury's verdict in order to provide the parties and the Court sufficient time to brief and consider the issue. The Court further instructed the parties to address the issue of suppression in their post-trial motions.
On December 19, 2016, Thompson filed a Renewed Motion to Suppress and for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial.41 On March 27, 2017, Lirette filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's ruling on the motions to suppress.42
Rule 12(b)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a defendant to file a motion to suppress before trial so long as the basis for the motion is reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.43 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly "recognized that a district court may reject a tardy suppression motion solely on the grounds of its untimeliness."44 Rule 12(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; however, includes a provision allowing, for good cause, the court to grant relief to a defendant who has not timely asserted his right to file a 12(b)(3) motion.45 Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not state that a defendant waives his ability to file a motion to suppress by not timely filing a motion before the beginning of a trial on the merits, the rules do explicitly require that the defendant provide "good cause" for his untimeliness.46
Williams did not file a pretrial motion to suppress. At trial, Williams' counsel stated on the record that he wished to join his co-Defendant's renewed motion. The Court did not rule at that time on Williams' right to join in Thompson's renewed motion to suppress given that Williams did not timely file his own pre-trial motion to suppress. Although he styled his post-trial motion as one for acquittal and/or for new trial, in reality his request for a new trial is based in large part on his untimely motion for suppression ofevidence. Williams failed to timely file a motion to suppress and has failed to show "good cause" as to why the Court should consider his untimely motion to suppress.
In his post-trial motion filed on the record, Williams argues that, although he did not file his own motion to suppress prior to trial, his trial counsel "made an oral motion to adopt all pleadings filed by co-defendants during the pendency of the case."47 Williams argues this is sufficient to show that he "effectively joined in the pretrial motion to suppress filed by" co-Defendant Thompson.48 Accepting Williams' argument that he "effectively joined" a pretrial motion during the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial