United States v. Wright

• Decision Date: 07 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. CR15-0046-LTS,CR15-0046-LTS
• Citation: United States v. Wright, No. CR15-0046-LTS (N.D. Iowa Jul 07, 2016)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MAX JULIAN WRIGHT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MAX JULIAN WRIGHT, Defendant.

No. CR15-0046-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

July 7, 2016

ORDER

This matter is before me on a motion for new trial and judgment of acquittal (Doc. No. 159) filed by defendant Max Wright. Plaintiff (the Government) has filed a resistance (Doc. No. 171) and Wright has filed a reply (Doc. No. 177). Also before me is the Government's motion to strike Wright's reply (Doc. No. 178) as being too long and too late.

I. BACKGROUND

In the third superseding indictment (Doc. No. 98) the grand jury charged Wright with three counts: conspiracy to distribute heroin/cocaine/Fentanyl causing serious injury and death (Count 1) and two counts of distribution of Fentanyl (Counts 2 and 3).¹ On November 13, 2015, the Government filed a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a). Doc. No. 88. On February 17, 2016, I entered an order (Doc. No. 129) granting in part and denying in part the motion. Relevant to Wright's present motion, I stated:

The Government is entitled to offer into evidence, pursuant to a limiting instruction, the certified judgment of Wright's most-recent conviction,dated August 7, 2008 (attached as Exhibit 3 to the Government's motion). Unless and until ordered otherwise, however, no reference shall be made in the presence of the jury to any of Wright's other prior convictions.

Doc. No. 129 at 6.

On February 19, 2016, I entered a final order regarding jury instructions (Doc. No. 134) in which I stated, among other things, that I would reserve deciding whether to give a buyer/seller jury instruction until after the close of the evidence. Id. at 1-2. Trial then began on February 22, 2016.² On February 29, 2016, I denied Wright's motion for a buyer/seller instruction. I stated:

The defense submitted a brief, the government also submitted an argument, and I can't remember in what context but both parties have submitted argument on the issue of the buyer/seller instruction, I've read all of the cited cases, I've also actually over the last week read what I think to be at least going back 10 years every Eighth Circuit case addressing buyer and seller instruction. Having done that review of Eighth Circuit law, I'm firmly convinced that a buyer/seller instruction is not appropriate based on the evidence that I have heard at this time. The case I find most persuasive, not that one is much different than the other, is United States v Tillman, 765 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2014). There's a discussion beginning at 835 which [] cites the Eighth Circuit general rule that the instruction is not appropriate when there's evidence of multiple drug transactions as opposed to a single isolated sale. I tend to agree with the defense that I don't really think the Eighth Circuit means that 2 sales or 3 sales automatically ends the buyer/seller possibility, but we've heard evidence of a lot more than a few isolated sales of heroin and drugs in this case. The other reason I think Tillman is an interesting and instructive case is the Court goes on to say, look, even if arguably a separate buyer/seller instruction should have been given, there's no prejudice here, because the Court's instructions about what is and what is not a conspiracy cover the concepts, and basically give the defense the chance to make the argument to the jury. The language cited in Tillman mirrors the language that's on pages 9 and especially 10 of our jury instructions that we've already given to the jury. That's instruction Number 5 talking about the elements of the conspiracy offense, and particularly under element 2, which discussion begins on Page 9 and carriesover onto Page 10. [There are] factors of what [is] not enough to show that a person joined into the agreement. Those factors mirror the factors that the Tillman court identified, as covering the concept sufficiently so that even if under the facts of Tillman a buyer/seller instruction should have been given, it was not error to not give it in that particular case because the instructions already dealt with the concept. I find that the Court's instructions here, since they mirror those approved in Tillman and based on the evidence that I have heard and my interpretation of the Eighth Circuit case law, I find that [a buyer/seller instruction] is not appropriate, and that in any event, the Court's instruction Number 5 already tells the jury what a conspiracy is and what it isn't and allows the defense to make its argument accordingly so I am going to deny the defense request for a separate buyer/seller instruction. Certainly there's no doubt that it's been timely requested, and argued very thoroughly by the defense and so the record should reflect that the defense has made a timely request for a buyer/seller instruction and I simply find based on the evidence and the applicable law that that instruction is not appropriate so I will not be giving that instruction.³

On March 1, 2016, after both parties rested, I denied the defendant's oral motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a), stating:

I've now heard the arguments of counsel. I'm going to deny the defendant's Rule 29 motion in all regards. I find there is sufficient evidence in the record presented by the government for the jury if they believe the evidence, and obviously, the credibility is a huge issue that has to be weighed by the jury if the jury believes the evidence presented by the government, the jury can find all of the liability elements of the conspiracy offense charged in Count 1, and I also find that the jury is entitled to find, if it believes the evidence presented by the government, that drugs supplied in furtherance of the conspiracy, were the but for cause of each alleged incident of serious bodily injury or death, so I do find that the government is entitled to have Count 1 submit to the jury along with each of the alleged incidents of serious bodily injury or death, so the Rule 29 motion is denied, and I will besubmitting all of the charges described in the superseding indictment to the jury.

On March 2, 2016, the jury returned guilty verdicts on Counts 1, 2 and 3. The jury found Wright responsible for less than 28 grams of cocaine, responsible for more than a 100 grams of heroin, responsible for serious bodily injury to C.B, A.Ma (twice), T.H., A.Mo, and A.K., and responsible for the deaths of L.M. and A.Mo.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

A. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 provides that "the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Such a motion is permitted after trial, in which case the court may set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c). It is well-settled that jury verdicts are not lightly overturned. See, e.g., United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882, 890 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Stroh, 176 F.3d 439, 440 (8th Cir. 1999). The Government, as the prevailing party, is entitled to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to them. See United States v. Peters, 462 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2006). The court must uphold the jury's verdict so long as a reasonable minded jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Moreover, courts "must uphold the jury's verdict even where the evidence 'rationally supports two conflicting hypotheses' of guilt and innocence." Id. (quoting United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628, 634 (8th Cir. 2004)). Additionally, courts should not reconsider the credibility of the witnesses as that is a task for the jury. United States v. Hayes, 391 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2004).

B. Motion for New Trial

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." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). "The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court." United States v. Knight, 800 F.3d 491, 504 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). A district court may "weigh the evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict." United States v. Campos, 306 F.3d 577, 579 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 780 (8th Cir. 1992)). However, the court should grant a new trial only if "the evidence weighs heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred." United States v. Rodriguez, 812 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1987). "The standard for granting a motion for new trial is more lenient than for a judgment of acquittal; the court is allowed to vacate any judgment if the interests of justice so require." United States v. Dean, 810 F.3d 521, 532 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal citations). However, "[m]otions for new trials based on the weight of the evidence are generally disfavored." Campos, 306 F.3d at 579. District courts "must exercise the Rule 33 authority 'sparingly and with caution.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir. 1980)). The court's standard of review for a motion for new trial differs from the standard that is applied to a motion for judgment of acquittal.

When a motion for new trial is made on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the issues are far different from those raised by a motion for judgment of acquittal. The question is not whether the defendant should be acquitted outright, but only whether he should have a new trial. The district court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; it may weigh the evidence and in so doing evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses. United States v. Walker, 393...