United States v. Young

• Citation: 547 F.Supp.3d 575
• Decision Date: 06 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 4:20-cr-318-P,4:20-cr-318-P
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Eric Darius YOUNG.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

547 F.Supp.3d 575

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Eric Darius YOUNG.

No. 4:20-cr-318-P

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Signed July 6, 2021

Brandie Lou Wade, US Attorney's Office, Fort Worth, TX, for USA.

Stephen Le Brocq, Le Brocq Law Firm PLLC, Carrollton, TX, Henry James Clark, Jr, Law Office of Henry J Clark Jr, Fort Worth, TX, for Eric Darius Young.

ORDER

Mark T. Pittman, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Eric Darius Young's Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal (ECF No. 139) and Rule 33 Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 140). Having considered the Motions, the Responses (ECF Nos. 143, 144), facts of this case, and applicable law, the Court finds that the Motions should be and are hereby DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In September 2020, a confidential source ("CS") reported to authorities that Mr. Young attempted to purchase multiple kilograms of cocaine. ECF No. 1 at 2–3. Unbeknownst to Mr. Young, the government and CS had begun a correspondence where Mr. Young and the CS would discuss a potential purchase of cocaine. Id. at 3. The deal fell through initially, but on or about September 16, 2020, Mr. Young informed the CS that he was willing to arrange a cocaine deal. Id. On September 17, 2020, authorities arrested Mr. Young and two others, Lindsay Lacy and Edward Lassiter, during a transaction with the CS. Id. at 4.

On September 18, 2020, the Government filed a criminal complaint against three defendants including Mr. Young. ECF No. 1. On November 12, 2020, Mr. Young was indicted for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. ECF No. 26. The case was initially scheduled for trial to take place on December 21, 2020. ECF No. 30. However, the Court granted Mr. Young's Motion to Continue (ECF No. 32) and continued the trial to March 29, 2021. ECF No. 34. The government subsequently filed a superseding indictment (ECF No. 35)¹ , and Mr. Young retained new counsel (ECF No. 43). Mr. Young's new counsel filed a second Motion for Continuance. ECF No. 42. After receiving a response in opposition from the government (ECF No. 45) and conducting a hearing on the motion (ECF No. 47), the Court denied the second Motion for Continuance but permitted Mr. Young to file motions out of time. ECF No. 48. Indeed, the Court granted Mr. Young leave to file numerous motions. See, e.g. , ECF Nos. 58, 67.²

One of the issues Mr. Young raised that became a point of dispute was the identity of the CS. Mr. Young sought the disclosure of the CS's identity and location, and the government opposed disclosure on the ground of the informant's privilege. See, e.g. , ECF Nos. 60, 61. The Friday before trial was scheduled, the Court considered arguments from both sides, as well as briefs (ECF Nos. 79, 81), regarding the importance of the identity of the CS. ECF No. 83. When it had become clear that the CS's involvement in Mr. Young's arrest was significant and that Mr. Young was asserting an entrapment defense to which he planned on testifying, the Court entered an order instructing the parties to submit certain evidence in camera and ex parte so that the Court could conduct the appropriate balancing test in accordance with applicable caselaw and determine if the CS's identity should be disclosed. ECF Nos. 78, 84. The Court also continued and reset the trial for May 3, 2021. ECF No. 84. After receiving said evidence and with the filing of Mr. Young's amended witness list, it became clear that the identity and location of the CS had become known to Mr. Young. Thus, the Court entered an order finding the issue of informer's privilege was moot and denying the government's motion in limine to preclude the identity and mention of the CS at trial. ECF No. 91.

On April 9, 2021, the Court issued a supplemental scheduling order that, inter alia , set a pretrial conference for April 30, 2021, and provided a deadline of April 23, 2021 for the parties to file amended witness and exhibit lists. ECF No. 92. On April 13, 2021, Mr. Young filed his Second Amended Witness List, which included Jamison Sargent and identified Sargent as a witness who may testify about Mr. Young's relationship with the Lassiter family, as well as Mr. Young's character, work history, and criminal history, and Sargent's relationship with Mr. Young. ECF No. 94. On April 28, 2021, Mr. Young filed an opposed Motion for Leave to allow Sargent to testify remotely. ECF No. 115. The sole reason for the request was because Sargent's wife was on bed rest due to a high-risk pregnancy. Id. The only statement regarding Sargent's testimony was that it was "relevant and material" to Mr. Young's defense. Id. The Court denied the motion on April 29, 2021, which would have provided Mr. Young at least five days to make arrangements for Sargent to testify in person. ECF No. 119.

The case proceeded to trial on May 3, 2021 and continued through May 5, 2021. ECF Nos. 131, 133, 137. The government's case-in-chief included live testimony from, inter alia , Miguel Mendoza (the CS), as well as Mr. Young's co-defendants, Edward Lassiter and Lindsay Lacy. ECF No. 131, 133. After the government rested, Mr. Young presented his defense, which included testimony from himself, his wife, his mother, and several character witnesses. ECF Nos. 133, 137. The defense rested without calling Sargent or attempting to call two officers who had apparently been subpoenaed to testify. Nor did the defense seek a contempt order against any witnesses for failing to appear. In total, the jury heard testimony from 11 witnesses, and 39 exhibits (26 for the government and 13 for Mr. Young) were admitted into evidence. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in which they found Mr. Young guilty on Count One and not guilty on Count Two of the superseding indictment. ECF No. 136. Mr. Young is scheduled to be sentenced on July 8, 2021. ECF No. 138.

Now before the Court is Mr. Young's Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 140) and Motion for Acquittal (ECF No. 139) and the government's responses thereto (ECF Nos. 144, 143). Having been fully briefed, the Motions are now ripe for review.

DISCUSSION

In his Motion for Acquittal, Mr. Young contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to secure a valid conviction in so far that a rational trier of fact could not convict Mr. Young beyond a reasonable doubt. Mot. Acq. at 16. Specifically, Mr. Young contends that the government has failed to overcome his entrapment defense. Id. That is, the government failed to show that (1) Mr. Young was not induced into the drug deal, and (2) Mr. Young had a predisposition to commit the offense before being approached by Mendoza. Id. Mr. Young argues that the evidence showed he was induced by Mendoza badgering him into the deal. Id. Mr. Young also cites his various character witnesses to counter that he had a predisposition to commit the offense. Id. at 17

In his Motion for New Trial, Mr. Young contends that the weight of the evidence preponderates against the verdict, arguing that the government has failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome his entrapment defense. Mot. New Trl. at 3. Mr. Young relies on testimony from both himself and his wife Jasmaine Jackson in support of his argument that Mendoza induced him into the cocaine deal. Id. Mr. Young also attempts to counter the government's evidence showing a predisposition to commit the offense by arguing that the testimony of key government witnesses Edward Lassiter and Detective Mark Rangel was either unreliable and/or did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was predisposed to commit the offense. Id. at 3–4. Finally, Mr. Young argues he suffered a miscarriage of justice because two subpoenaed officers did not testify to a supposed post-arrest statement from Mr. Young and because Sargent (a character witness as to Mr. Young and Lassiter) was not allowed to testify remotely. Id. at 4–5.

A. Entrapment

"When a defendant pleads entrapment, he is asserting that, although he had criminal intent, it was ‘the Government's deception [that implemented] the criminal design in the mind of the defendant.’ " Mathews v. United States , 485 U.S. 58, 62, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (citing United States v. Russell , 411 U.S. 423, 436, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973) ); see also United States v. Alexander , 681 F. App'x 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2017) ("The government may not ‘implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce the commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.’ " (quoting Jacobson v. United States , 503 U.S. 540, 548, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) )). Two related elements make up an entrapment defense: the government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews , 485 U.S. at 62, 108 S.Ct. 883. Inducement requires more than the government/government agent providing the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime. Sherman v. United States , 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958). Rather, government inducement can occur when a government agent persists in encouraging criminality after a defendant rejects overtures, the presence of persuasion or mild coercion, or pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship. United States v. Macedo-Flores , 788 F.3d 181, 188 (5th Cir. 2015). The factors supporting predisposition include the defendant's eagerness to participate in the criminal transaction and a ready response to the government/government agent's offer. Id. at 187. A lack of predisposition can be demonstrated by a lack of prior interest or experience relating to the criminal significant hesitation or unwillingness or attempts to return the discussion to lawful conduct." Id.

B. Motion for Acquittal

1. Legal Standard

"A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict." United States v. Lucio , 428 F.3d 519, 522 (5th Cir. 2005)....