U.S. v. Morrison

596 F.Supp.2d 661

UNITED STATES of America, v. Rodney Arnoldo MORRISON, Defendant.

No. 04-CR-699 (DRH)(S-2).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

February 6, 2009.

As Amended February 26, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY, by James M. Miskiewicz, A.U.S.A., John Joseph Durham, A.U.S.A., Diane C. Leonardo-Beckman, A.U.S.A., for the Government.

William H. Murphy, Jr. & Associates, Baltimore, MD, by William H. Murphy, Jr., Esq., Kenneth W. Ravenell, Esq., Law Offices of Peter Smith & Associates, Northport, NY, by Peter Smith, Esq., Daniel Nobel, Esq., New York, NY, Levitt & Kaizer, Esqs., New York, NY, by Richard Levitt, Esq., for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND.............................................................................668
  I.   The Indictment..................................................................668
 II.   Racketeering Acts Four through Eighty—Contraband Cigarettes...............669
III. New York Tax Law .................................................................669
IV. Racketeering Acts Four through Eighty Charged Morrison with Violations of
      the CCTA Under Both 18 U.S.C. § 2342(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2..............670
V.  The "Forbearance Policy"...........................................................670
VI.  Defendant's Pre-Trial Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Acts Four through
       Eighty is Denied ...............................................................672
VII.  The Verdict .....................................................................672
VIII. The Instant Motion...............................................................672
DISCUSSION ............................................................................672
   I.  Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two (RICO Conspiracy) is Denied ............672
       A. The Absence of Regulations Under New York Tax Law § 471 Does not
            Preclude Prosecution Under the CCTA .......................................673
          1. The Court Will Address Defendant's Argument Concerning the
               Regulations Even Though it was Previously Addressed by the
               Court ..................................................................673
          2. The CCTA and the New York Tax Law ........................................674
          3. The Day Wholesale Case ...................................................676
          4. Defendant's Reliance on Day Wholesale is Misplaced .......................677
          5. The Milhelm Attea Case ...................................................680
             a. Milhelm Attea .........................................................680
             b. Defendant's Argument ..................................................682
          6. Conclusions as to Defendant's Regulatory Arguments .......................683
        B. Change in Theory ...........................................................683
           1. Racketeering Acts Five Through Eighty ...................................683
           2. During its Case-in-Chief, the Government Confined its Theory of
               Prosecution Regarding the CCTA Racketeering Acts to 18 U.S.C
               § 2 and Off-Reservation Sales .....................................684

           3. The Court Dismisses the CCTA Racketeering Acts as to Count One ..........685
           4. The Court Reserves Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
               CCTA Racketeering Acts as to Count Two .................................686
           5. The Parties' Arguments ..................................................687
           6. No Prejudice to Defendant Shown From Government's Change in
               Theory, and Overwhelming Evidence Supports Jury's Verdict as
               to Count Two ...........................................................687
        C. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two on Substantive Due Process
             Grounds is Denied ........................................................694
           1. Procedural Posture for Motion ...........................................694
           2. Applicable Standards ....................................................695
           3. Fair Notice .............................................................695
              a. Standard of Review ...................................................695
              b. The Court's November 9, 2007 Decision ................................695
              c. Defendant's Arguments as to the Changed Landscape do not
                    Alter the Court's Previous Conclusion that Morrison was not
                    Deprived of Substantive Due Process ...............................696
           4. Arbitrary Enforcement ...................................................701
              a. Applicable Law .......................................................701
              b. The CCTA Provides Sufficiently Clear Standards .......................702
              c. Lack of Scienter .....................................................705
           5. Conclusion as to Defendant's Substantive Due Process Claim ..............706
  II. Defendant's Motion for a New Trial as to Count Two (RICO Conspiracy) is
         Denied .......................................................................706
      A. Defendant's Application for a New Trial Based Upon the Court's
           Response to the Deliberating Jury's Note Marked as Court's Exhibit
           35 .........................................................................706
         1. Jury's Inquiry; Defendant's Proposed Response; and Response
              Provided by Court .......................................................706
         2. Court's Bench Decision Regarding Response to Court Exhibit 35 .............708
         3. Instructing the Jury That the Government Must Prove That the
              Defendant, Inter Alia, Understood That the Goal of the Conspiracy
              was "Wrong" Would Have Been Both Non-Responsive to the
              Jury's Inquiry, as Well as an Incorrect Statement of the Law ............709
         4. Conclusion Regarding Response Given to Court Exhibit 35 ...................710
      B. The Court Properly Charged the Elements of the CCTA to the Jury ..............711
         1. The Court's Instruction as to Section 471 was Appropriate .................712
         2. The Government was not Required to Prove That the Persons or
               Entities That Purchased the Cigarettes Referenced in Racketeering
               Acts Five Through Eighty Were Non-Native Americans or
               Otherwise Exempt From the CCTA .........................................714
      C. Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on Count Two Based on Court's
            Refusal to Instruct the Jury on the Defenses of Entrapment by
            Estoppel and Public Authority, and on Specific Intent, is Denied ..........716
         1. Entrapment by Estoppel ....................................................717
            a. Applicable Law .........................................................717
            b. Evidence Defendant Sought to Place Before the Jury as a
                 Factual Predicate for the Entrapment by Estoppel Defense .............717
            c. Government's Objections to Defendant's Proffer .........................717
            d. Court Held That Defense Could Try to Establish the Defense
                  Under a Conduit Theory Whereby the Purported Misrepresentations
                  of Law by the Governor or Other Public Officials
                  Could be Relayed Through Facer ......................................717
            e. Facer's Trial Testimony ................................................718
               i. Meetings and Conference Calls in 1996 and Early 1997
                     Regarding Governor's Intention to Enforce the Milhelm
                     Attea Regulations, i.e. to Attempt to Collect Taxes Due
                     for On-Reservation Sales to Non-Native Americans .................718

             ii. Governor's May 22, 1997 Press Release Indicating he was
                  not Going to Enforce the Milhelm Attea Regulations ..................719
              f. Facer did not Serve as a Conduit for the Governor's May 22
                  1997 Statement for Purposes of the Entrapment by Estoppel
                  Defense .............................................................719
         2. Public Authority Defense ..................................................720
III. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a New Trial as to Count Eight (Felon
      In Possession Count) is Denied ..................................................720
     A. Testimony of Allison Stewart ("Allison" or "Stewart")..........................721
     B. Testimony of Wynette Randall ("Randall") ......................................721
     C. Testimony of Suffolk County Police Detective George Herring
         ("Herring") ..................................................................721
     D. Defendant's September 18, 2003 Telephone Conversation With Stewart
         Regarding the two Glocks......................................................722
CONCLUSION ............................................................................723

Presently before the Court is the motion by defendant Rodney Morrison ("defendant" or "Morrison") to dismiss Counts Two and Eight of the second superseding indictment (hereinafter "indictment") under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 29 or for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33. For the following...