United States v. Whitley
| Docket Number | 1:21-cr-227 (LMB) |
| Decision Date | 03 June 2022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DOUGLAS DAMON WHITLEY and KINDAL ROBINSON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial filed by defendant Kindal Robinson ("Robinson") and an Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Memorandum in Support filed by defendant Douglas Damon Whitley (“Whitley”). [Dkt. Nos. 71, 74], This Memorandum Opinion supplements the ruling made in open court on May 24, 2022, which granted Robinson's motion as to Count II but denied it as to Count I, and which denied Whitley's motion in all respects.
The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, showed the following. Around 6:18 a.m. on August 25, 2021, Whitley and Robinson, who reside together and have an infant child, left their Washington, D.C. apartment. [Dkt. No. 65] at 78:20-80:18.[1]Whitley was wearing a white t-shirt and carrying a gray bookbag. [Dkt. No. 66] at 37:21-38:19. Robinson, who had brought their infant child with them, drove the three of them in a black Toyota Camry registered to her mother into the Alexandria area of Fairfax County. [Dkt. No. 65] at 80:6-18; [Dkt. No. 66] at 27:19-28:10, 33:2-4. Records from Robinson's phone placed her across the street from a Peloton warehouse in Alexandria around 7:17 a.m. [Dkt. No. 65] at 103:25-106:4; [Dkt. No. 66] at 44:5-23. Shortly before 7:45 a.m., a Peloton van with Maryland license plates left that same warehouse. [Dkt. No. 65] at 8:1-3, 136:10-11. Two Peloton employees were in the van: Brandon Hawkins was driving, and Leonel Munoz was in the passenger seat. Id. at 7:8-9. The van was loaded with eight Peloton bikes and assorted Peloton products that Hawkins and Munoz were scheduled to deliver throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that day. Id. at 5:9-6:14.
Around 7:45 a.m., the Peloton van pulled into the parking lot of a nearby strip mall in Fairfax County, with the black Toyota Camry following closely behind. Id. at 62:13-23; [Dkt. No. 66] at 21:19-24, 56:12-15. After the Peloton van had parked, Munoz exited and walked into a 7-Eleven to get breakfast, while Hawkins stayed inside the van. [Dkt. No. 65] at 8:4-24. Meanwhile, the black Toyota Camry drove through the parking lot and came to a stop behind the Peloton van. Id. at 62:24-63:4. While Munoz was in the 7-Eleven, Whitley exited from the passenger seat of the black Toyota Camry and approached the Peloton van from behind. Id. at 66:17-23. According to Hawkins, a man, who he described as wearing a white t-shirt, bucket hat, and camouflage gaiter over his nose and mouth, opened the front passenger-side door, got into the van, pulled a gun-metal gray firearm with a 20-round magazine out of a gray bookbag, pointed the firearm at Hawkins's torso, and said, “don't touch anything” and “get the fuck out the van.”[2] Id. at 8:14-10:6, 14:10-15:21. Hawkins immediately got out of the van and walked towards a nearby Wells Fargo because, according to Hawkins, he suspected it would have surveillance cameras, and Id. at 10:7-18. At this point, the black Toyota Camry drove out of the parking lot, and the Peloton van-now driven by the man in the bucket hat-followed it. Id. at 63:5-64:2.
Meanwhile, Hawkins met Munoz at the 7-Eleven and told him that “somebody stole the van.” Id. at 42:12-44:19. Hawkins and Munoz then began walking back to the warehouse, which was about a mile and a half away. Id. at 12:3-6. After arriving at the warehouse, Hawkins immediately reported the incident to management, who then called the police. Id. at 13:5-13. Detective Guckenberger, the lead detective, arrived at the warehouse by 9:00 a.m., after which he interviewed Hawkins, who told him that the suspect had worn a white shirt, dark bucket hat, and camouflage gaiter. [Dkt. No. 66] at 21:19-26:1.
Fairfax County police officers identified the license plate of the black Toyota Camry from the surveillance footage of a nearby business and traced the car to Robinson's mother. [Dkt. No. 65] at 68:18-70:10; [Dkt. No. 66] at 27:19-28:10, 33:2-4. When interviewed the next day at defendants' apartment, Robinson admitted that she had driven the black Toyota Camry in the area of the 7-Eleven parking lot the day before. [Dkt. No. 66] at 32:23-33:1. Whitley was present in the apartment during the interview and was wearing a camouflage gaiter similar to the one Hawkins described. [Dkt. No. 65] at 76:6-20; [Dkt. No. 66] at 93:8-94:2. A bucket hat similar to the one Hawkins described was found in the trunk of the Camry that had been parked in the apartment building's parking lot. [Dkt. No. 66] at 32:23-33:8, 93:20-24. The empty Peloton van was eventually found in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, but a gun was never recovered, and no fingerprint or DNA evidence was introduced at trial. [Dkt. No. 65] at 139:3-15; [Dkt. No. 66] at 52:2-3. Some of the stolen Peloton bikes were sold over the internet to unwitting purchasers. [Dkt. No. 66] at 97:14-22.
On October 13, 2021, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Whitley and Robinson with Obstructing Commerce by Robbery (“Hobbs Act robbery”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 (Count I) and Carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2119 and 2 (Count II). Whitley alone was charged with Using, Carrying, and Brandishing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count III). Whitley and Robinson both pleaded not guilty. On February 18, 2022, after a two-day jury trial, a jury convicted both defendants of all counts.[3]
When considering a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, a court must determine “whether there is substantial evidence (direct or circumstantial) which, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would warrant a jury finding that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Eychaner, 326 F.Supp.3d 76, 85 (E.D. Va. 2018) (quoting United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 1982)). The motion must be denied if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. United Med. & Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390, 1402 (4th Cir. 1993)).
Robinson, who was convicted for aiding and abetting Whitley, challenges her convictions on two grounds. First, she focuses on the intent element of aiding-and-abetting liability, which requires a defendant to “intend to aid the charged crime, and it is not enough to intend to further a different or lesser offense.” United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 190 (4th Cir. 2021). She argues that there was no evidence presented showing that she intended Whitley to use force or violence when taking the van and therefore no evidence to find that she intended Whitley to commit either a robbery or carjacking. Instead, she argues that she could have simply intended Whitley to commit the lesser offense of larceny-i.e., to take the van without force or violence.
Although the government did not respond to Robinson's argument, the argument is nonetheless unpersuasive as to the Hobbs Act robbery count because it fails to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Viewed through that lens, the evidence showed that Robinson drove Whitley to the Peloton warehouse, waited with Whitley until the target Peloton van left, and then followed the Peloton van to the 7-Eleven parking lot where she pulled her car around and behind the van after it parked. From these facts, it would also have been reasonable to infer that Robinson knew someone was still in the van, given (1) that she pulled behind the van as if to help Whitley approach it while undetected by anyone inside it, which would not have been necessary if the van was unoccupied; (2) her proximity to the van; and (3) how little time had passed between the van parking and Whitley approaching the van. And because it would have been reasonable to infer that Robinson knew someone was in the van, it therefore also would have been reasonable to infer that Whitley would have to use force to take the van from that person's possession. For these reasons, Robinson's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial as to Count I has been denied.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Robinson intended for Whitley to take the van by deadly or violent force, which is a necessary element of the carjacking offense, is a much closer question. See 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (requiring proof of “intent to cause death or serious bodily harm”). Robinson argues that there was absolutely no evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find that she knew that Whitley was carrying a gun and planned to use it. The government did not respond to this argument.
It is clear from the record that there was no direct evidence that Robinson knew Whitley had a loaded gun. No gun, ammunition or anything connected to a firearm was found either in the Camry or Robinson and Whitley's apartment. None of the video surveillance shows Whitley carrying a gun when he exited the Camry and entered the Peloton van. And the lead detective testified that Robinson told him that she had no knowledge of a firearm. [Dkt. No. 66] at 90:1518. The evidence only shows that Whitley left his apartment...
To continue reading
Request your trial