United States v. Walton

• Decision Date: 25 July 2018
• Docket Number: Case No.: SACR 16-00029-CJC
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Keith Marvel WALTON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

403 F.Supp.3d 839

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Keith Marvel WALTON, Defendant.

Case No.: SACR 16-00029-CJC

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.

Signed July 25, 2018

Jeffrey M. Chemerinsky, Julia L. Reese, AUSA - Office of the US Attorney Violent and Organized Crimes Section, Los Angeles, CA, Scott D. Tenley, AUSA - Office of US Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR NEW TRIAL

CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 22, 2017, after a four-week trial, the jury found Defendant Keith Marvel Walton guilty of the following charges: (1) aiding and abetting or conspiring with others to commit Hobbs Act robbery at Westime in West Hollywood, California ("the Westime robbery"); (2) aiding and abetting or conspiring with others to commit Hobbs Act robbery at Ben Bridge Jeweler in Torrance, California ("the Del Amo robbery"); (3) aiding and abetting or conspiring with others, who knowingly brandished a firearm during and in relation to the Del Amo robbery; (4) aiding and abetting or conspiring with others to commit Hobbs Act robbery at Ben Bridge Jeweler in Santa Monica, California ("the Santa Monica robbery"); and (5) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery.

On December 11, 2017, Walton filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, for a new trial. (Dkt. 1123.) Walton's co-defendants Jameson LaForest and Evan Scott also moved to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, for a new trial, on the same grounds–asserting prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of certain unadmitted documents that reached the jury during deliberations and that Defendants contend affected the jury's verdicts. (See Dkts. 1107, 1108.) On February 22, 2018, after an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied all motions to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, for a new trial. (Dkts. 1199 ["February 22 Order"], 1200.) The Court specifically held that the inclusion of unadmitted documents in the jury's exhibit binders "was the result of the parties' joint error," and was "not the result of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct." (February 22 Order at 10–13.) The Court also held that there was no reasonable possibility that the unadmitted criminal court documents and demonstrative charts in Volume 7 could have affected the jury's verdicts. (Id. at 13–19.)

On April 24, 2018, Walton's co-defendant, Robert Johnson, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 22 Order. (Dkt. 1255.)¹ In that motion, Johnson asserted that Exhibit 157, which consisted of fifteen photographs that were not admitted into evidence, reached the jury during deliberations and had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdicts. On May 16, 2018, the Court denied Johnson's motion, finding that there was no reasonable possibility that the photographs could have affected the jury's verdicts. (Dkt. 1266.)

On March 12, 2018, Walton requested an ex parte communication with the Court. (Dkt. 1225.) On March 19, 2018, the Court held a status conference with Walton and his counsel in camera, after which the Court appointed Walton advisory counsel. (Dkts. 1231, 1232.) On June 28, 2018, Walton's advisory counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 22 Order. (Dkt. 1310 [hereinafter, "Mot."].) Walton now moves to dismiss the indictment, or alternatively, for a new trial, asserting that the demonstrative charts, Exhibit 157, and the criminal court documents affected the jury's verdicts. Walton also asserts that the Government should not have been allowed to present historical cell-site evidence that it acquired without probable cause in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018). The Government argues that there is no reasonable possibility that the unadmitted documents could have affected the jury's verdicts in light of the jury's limited exposure thereto, the Court's curative instructions, the cumulative nature or inconsequential prejudice of the documents, the strength of the Government's evidence, and the inferences that can be drawn from the jury's verdicts. The Government also argues that Carpenter does not alter the fact it obtained Walton's historical cell-site data pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications Act, and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.²

The Court agrees with the Government. Walton has presented no reason for the Court to reconsider and change its prior rulings. Accordingly, Walton's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.³

II. BACKGROUND

The operative Third Superseding Indictment charged Walton, as well as Johnson, LaForest, Scott, Justin Henning, and Jeremy Tillett, with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count One), various counts of Hobbs Act robbery (Counts Two, Four, Six, Eight, Nine, Eleven, Thirteen, and Fourteen), and counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) with brandishing enhancements (Counts Three, Five, Seven, Ten, and Twelve). (Dkt. 537.) The charges arose from a series of armed and unarmed "smash and grab" robberies that occurred at jewelry stores across Southern California.

On September 13, 2017, after the jurors were dismissed for the day, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk instructed the parties to confirm the final exhibit list and to prepare a set of exhibit binders for the jury. (Dkt. 1057 [Transcript 9/15/17] at 14.) The exhibit binders were reviewed and prepared for the jury by Defendant Henning's counsel Mr. Tedford, ATF Special Agent Ryan Stearman, the case agent, Walton's counsel Mr. Nishi, and his paralegal Jennifer Wang, and AUSA Jeffrey Chemerinsky. (Id. at 15; Dkt. 1143-1 Ex. D ["9/13 Video"].) Counsel for Defendants Johnson, LaForest, Scott, and Tillett, stayed near defense counsel table during the exhibit review and did not personally participate. (See generally 9/13 Video.)

On September 14, 2017, the jury began deliberations at approximately 10:24 a.m. (Dkt. 1056 [Transcript 9/14/17] at 67.) At 4:00 p.m., the jury submitted a note to the Court inquiring whether it was proper for the jury to have Exhibit 188. (Dkt. 996 [hereinafter, "Jury Note 3"].) Exhibit 188 was an unadmitted demonstrative chart purporting to show phone calls between co-conspirators on the days of the robberies. Around 4:30 p.m. later that day, the jury was dismissed after deliberating for about six hours, and the Court conferred with the parties to address Jury Note 3. (Transcript 9/14/17 at 70.) The jury continued their deliberations at 8:30 a.m. on the morning of Friday, September 15, 2017. The jury received the Court's response to Jury Note 3, which instructed the jury that "Exhibit 188 should not have been provided to the jury as it was not admitted into evidence," and that the jury "should disregard it and determine the facts from the underlying evidence" unless it correctly reflected admitted evidence. (Dkt. 997.) At 8:40 a.m., the jury submitted Jury Note 4 as "a follow-up" to Jury Note 3, and notified the Court that it had Exhibit 188 and would "await the Court's response before proceeding any further with any of the evidence provided for the Jury to review." (Dkt. 998 [hereinafter, "Jury Note 4"].) The Court responded, repeating its admonition about Exhibit 188, and ordered Exhibit 188 removed from the jury's exhibit binder. (Dkt. 999.) At 9:15 a.m., the jury submitted another note to the Court stating, "[t]he Jury requests the Court retrieve all evidence from the Jury Room and review to assure for the Jury no other Exhibits that were not admitted into evidence were inadvertently provided." (Dkt. 1001 [hereinafter, "Jury Note 6"].) The Court then received all of the exhibit binders back from the jury, (Dkt. 1002 [Response to Jury Note 6] ), and the parties re-reviewed the exhibit binders, (see generally Dkt. 1143-1 Exs. G ["9/15 Video I"], H ["9/15 Video II"], I ["9/15 Video III"], J ["9/15 Video IV"] ).

Volume 7 was a three-inch binder that contained documents marked as the Government's Exhibits 148 through 203K. (Dkt. 1260 at 5.) During the re-review process, the parties determined that Volume 7 contained four admitted exhibits and twenty-eight unadmitted documents. (Transcript 9/15/17 at 11–23.) During the exhibit review, the parties apparently had only removed Exhibits 203 and 203A-203K from Volume 7. (Id. ; Dkt. 1143-1 Ex. A at 25–30.) The majority of the unadmitted documents in Volume 7 were demonstrative charts and maps, including Exhibit 188. Eight demonstrative charts depicted the conspirators' phone activity on the days robberies were committed or attempted. (Exs. 181-188.) Five demonstrative charts depicted the total number of telephone contacts between conspirators over the entire time period for which cell phone records existed. (Exs. 189-193.) Three demonstrative charts depicted a particular Defendant's telephone calls with any co-conspirator on specific dates relevant to the conspiracy. (Exs. 178-180.) The other demonstrative documents were GPS data for telephones associated with Walton, Johnson, and Darrell Dent, (Exs. 200-202), demonstrative maps prepared from that GPS data, (Ex. 199), two maps of Inglewood, California, (Exs. 152A, 152B), and DMV records related to Walton, (Exs. 196-197).

Exhibit 157 was another unadmitted exhibit inadvertently left in Volume 7. Exhibit 157 was a fifteen-page compilation of photographs taken during the June 16, 2016, search of Johnson's home in relation to this case. (Dkt. 1260-1 [Declaration of AUSA Scott Tenley, hereinafter "Tenley Decl."] ¶ 4, Ex. 2 ["Exhibit 157"].) The bottom right corner of each page in Exhibit 157 included text identifying it as "EXHIBIT 157," a page number, and a discovery Bates stamp, i.e., "Rolex_00068745." No person is depicted in any of the photographs. The photographs included images of a silver or light blue mini-van...