Skip to main content

Court Finds Nothing to Fault in Gang Member's Conviction and Sentence

United States v. Jones, No. 07-2798 (May 20, 2009).
The Third Circuit gives broad rein to a district court’s exercise of discretion across a range of jury selection, evidentiary, and sentencing issues in this appeal from a conviction under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (“VICAR”) statute. The defendant was charged with having joined in a retaliatory, drive-by-type shooting on the orders of higher-ranking members of the Double II Bloods gang in East Orange, New Jersey. One person was injured in the shooting but no one was killed. The defendant was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment after conviction of, among other offenses, conspiracy to commit murder for the “purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5).

At voir dire, following the description to prospective jurors of separate charges brought against certain of Mr. Jones’s six codefendants but not Mr. Jones, all of the codefendants pled guilty. At least one juror, who was dismissed, learned of the codefendants’ pleas via media coverage. By this point, the jury selection process had taken “well over” a month, the court had “pre-qualified approximately 40 jurors out of a pool of approximately 360 based on a detailed questionnaire,” and more than 50 percent of jurors had been excused for cause due to bias against gang members. Following the pleas, the district court instructed jurors to limit their deliberations to the particular crimes charged against the defendant and not to speculate on how he came to be tried alone. The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s rejection of Mr. Jones’s request to restart the voir dire process with a new jury pool. The court, it found, had made a “substantial effort” to ascertain jurors’ ability to be impartial, “particularly on specific issues,” and had instructed the jury “cautiously.”

The Third Circuit also rejected the defendant’s Rule 401 and 403 challenges to the admission of other gang members’ activities. These spanned a multiple-year period, whereas the charges against the defendant arose from a single incident on one date. Among the evidence admitted was an autopsy photograph of a murdered Double II Bloods member, the “brutal face slashing” of a Double II Bloods member by another member while in jail, and testimony concerning drug-running operations between New Jersey and New York City. The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the potential for prejudice did not substantially outweigh this evidence’s probative value on VICAR elements going to the existence of a racketeering enterprise and a connection to interstate commerce. It noted that the government “took steps to pare down” evidence it had planned to introduce against other codefendants, whereby “a trial expected to last up to six months was reduced to five full days of testimony.”

Sentencing-wise, the Court found no procedural error in the district court’s failure to formally rule on the defendant’s motion for a downward departure for overrepresentation of his criminal history. It was sufficient that the government’s sentencing memorandum had acknowledged the “plausibility of a departure” and that the record did not indicate the district court to have thought it lacked discretion to depart. A second contention of procedural error, which the Court called “plausible … but ultimately unconvincing,” was a claim that the district court had given insufficient consideration to the disparity between the defendant’s sentence and that of a codefendant who had participated equally in the shooting incident. Although the codefendant received a sentence of only four years (compared with defendant’s 22), the Circuit held the district court to have given “meaningful consideration” to the disparity factor. The opinion is somewhat ambiguous as to precisely what record the district court made of its reasoning, but for its part, the Circuit notes that the codefendant had pled guilty, accepted responsibility, denounced his gang affiliation despite a “looming threat of violent retaliation,” and substantially cooperated with the government, including by testifying against Mr. Jones. The Third Circuit also found Mr. Jones’s sentence, which reflected a 44-month downward variance, not to be substantively unreasonable.

Mr. Jones fared no better on the one issue reviewed de novo by the Circuit, which was the sufficiency of evidence to support the existence of an agreement to commit murder and thus the conspiracy conviction. An agreement could be inferred from the government’s showing that the defendant, after previously pledging to kill for the gang, had been dispatched from an organizational meeting with a loaded gun and instructions to “kill” or “RIP” (meaning “rest-in-peace”) anyone found at the location of the shooting. The Court also noted that the defendant was “required to follow the orders of senior members,” acted in concert with a second gang member, and was watched over by a third member assigned to make sure the shooting was carried out.


Popular posts from this blog

Double Jeopardy Claim Falls Short on Deferential Habeas Review

In the habeas matter of Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, Nos. 15-1598 & 15-2673, the Third Circuit defers to a state court determination that the defendant’s conviction of both an attempted murder count and an aggravated assault count based on the same altercation did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The evidence was that during the altercation, the defendant both struck the victim in the head with a gun and shot him in the chest. The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld consecutive sentences on the theory that the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find the striking to support one count and the shooting the other. Despite the jury instructions’ and verdict form’s failure to require each of these discrete findings, the Third Circuit holds that the state court’s reasoning was sound enough to withstand deferential review the AEDPA’s “clearly established Federal law” limitation. “[W]here the jury instructions were merely ambiguous and did not foreclose the jury…

Jurisdiction for revocation of supervised release where revocation also imposed in other District on concurrent case and local Probation Office was not supervising releasee

In United States v. Johnson, 2017 WL 2819210 (June 30, 2017),, the Third Circuit rejected two jurisdictional challenges to a revocation proceeding in one District where the defendant was also concurrently supervised and revoked in another District. For separate federal offenses in the Middle District of Florida and Virgin Islands, Johnson was serving two concurrent terms of supervised release. He was living in and supervised by the Middle District of Florida and had no contact with the Probation Office in the Virgin Islands. He committed a new offense in Florida and the Middle District revoked his supervised release. Johnson challenged revocation proceedings in the Virgin Islands. The Third Circuit found that the Virgin Islands maintained jurisdiction. It joined the Second and Fifth Circuits in finding that concurrent terms of supervised release do not merge: the term of supervised release in the Virgin Islands was not constructively d…

Mailing Threatening Communications is a Crime of Violence and a Judicial Proposal for Reform of the Categorical Approach

In United States v. Chapman, __F.3d__, No. 16-1810, 2017 WL 3319287 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), the Third Circuit held that mailing a letter containing any threat to injure the recipient or another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) qualifies as a crime of violence for the purposes of the career offender enhancements of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a).The Court acknowledged in a footnote that the analysis is the same for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871, threats against the president.

The Court began its analysis by reviewing the definition of “crime of violence” and specifically the meaning of the words “use” and “physical force.”Quoting United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014), and Tran v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2005), it defined “use” as “the intentional employment of force, generally to obtain some end,” which conveys the notion that the thing used “has become the user’s instrument.” The Court confirmed the definition of “physical force” as “force ca…