United States v. Christy, 3:18-CR-223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHAWN CHRISTY, Defendant.

3:18-CR-223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 16, 2020

(JUDGE MARIANI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Shawn Christy's Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal/Motion for New Trial (Doc. 213) is pending before the Court. Defendant filed the motion following a seven-day trial which resulted in a guilty verdict on all twelve counts contained in the Second Superseding Indictment (Doc. 47). (Doc. 211.) Specifically, on November 27, 2019, the jury convicted Defendant of one count of threatening the President of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 871), three counts of transmitting threatening communication (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)), two counts of interstate transportation of stolen vehicles (18 U.S.C. § 2312), two counts of interstate transportation of stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(i)), two counts of interstate transportation of a firearm while under an Information for a felony offense (18 U.S.C. § 922(n)), one count of being a fugitive in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2)), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). (Id.)

The pro se motion, dated December 5, 2019, and docketed in this Court on December 12, 2019, identifies three grounds for the Court to enter an acquittal and ten grounds for granting a new trial. (Doc. 213 at 1-2.) The motion does not provide support for the conclusory assertions, and Defendant did not file a supporting brief within the time allowed for doing so. By Order of January 17, 2020, the Court directed Defendant to file a brief within twenty-one days of the date of the Order, directed the Government to file a responsive brief no later than twenty-one days thereafter, and allowed Defendant an additional fourteen days to file a reply brief. (Doc. 216.)

On February 10, 2020, Defendant filed a document consisting of four sentences which he titled "Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal." (Doc. 229 at 2.) Defendant again failed to provide support for the conclusory assertions contained in his filing. (Id.)

On the same day, Defendant also filed a "Motion for Production of Transcripts at Government's Expense" (Doc. 229), requesting a transcript of his criminal trial. Defendant's motion asserted that the transcript was necessary as he was "preparing a sentencing memorandum as well as arguments that he would like to present to the Court in a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal." (Id.) The Court granted this motion (Doc. 248) and, on April 20, 2020, the official trial transcript was filed of record (Docs. 267-273).

Prior to the official trial transcript being completed and filed, pursuant to this Court's Order directing the Government to file a response within 21 days of the filing of a brief in support of Defendant's Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal/Motion for a New Trial (see Doc. 216), the Government filed a response to Defendant's motion on March 5, 2020 (Doc. 252).

On June 5, 2020, Defendant's standby counsel informed the Court that he had hand-delivered a copy of the entire trial transcript to Defendant (Doc. 282). On the same day, in order to afford Defendant "every benefit, and in light of Defendant's request for the trial transcript, in part to support arguments in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal/new trial," the Court allowed Defendant until June 19, 2020, to file a supplemental brief in support of his Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal/Motion for a New Trial and allowed the Government fourteen days to file a supplemental response. (Doc. 283.) On June 15, 2020, Defendant informed the Court that he declined to file a supplemental brief, stating that he had read the trial transcript in full and had "no more new information to add." (Doc. 286 at 1.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

Defendant moves for judgment of acquittal on the following grounds: 1) the matter of finding guilt for stolen items such as guns and vehicles has not been decided in state court; 2) Defendant was blocked from attendance at state court hearings; and 3) Defendant was denied access to important legal information by the FBI, United States Marshals Service, and Lackawanna County Prison. (Doc. 213 at 1.) Defendant also states that he renews his previous motion for acquittal. (Id.) In "Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal," he alleges that "[t]he Government has destroyed/planted evidence, with every item of audio/video evidence altered or missing. No FD-302s from the vehicle owners orfrom DA John Morganelli, have been filed. DA Morganelli stated to Newsweek that he was not a victim." (Doc. 244 at 2.)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 provides the following in pertinent part:

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, 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. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

. . . .

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.

(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) and (c).

In reviewing a Rule 29 post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal,

a district court must "review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence." United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir.2001). The court is required to "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury'sverdict." United States v. Anderskow, 88 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.1996). Thus, a finding of insufficiency should "be confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear." United States v. Leon, 739 F.2d 885, 891 (3d Cir.1984).

United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 476-77 (3d Cir. 2002). The Third Circuit has long advised that, in considering a post-verdict judgment of acquittal, the court "must uphold the jury's verdict unless no reasonable juror could accept the evidence as sufficient to support the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112, 183 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Coleman, 811 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir. 1987)). In United States v. Tyler, 956 F.3d 116, the Circuit Court elaborated on the well-recognized standard:

This review is "highly deferential" to the factual findings of the jury, and we "must be ever vigilant ... not to usurp the role of the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting [our] judgment for that of the jury." United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005)).

Thus, even if the evidence adduced is consistent with multiple possibilities, our role as a reviewing court is to uphold the jury verdict ... as long as it passes the bare rationality test. Reversing the jury's conclusion simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent with the proper inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges, which is that [t]he evidence does not need to be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt if it does establish a case from which the jury can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to the jury—not the district court judge or our Court—to examine the evidence and draw inferences. Unless the jury's conclusion is irrational, it must be upheld.

Id. at 433 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Tyler, 956 F.3d at 122-23.

Here, Defendant's assertions in support of his Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal do not specifically address the sufficiency of the evidence. (See Doc. 213 at 1.) However, the Court will consider whether his single-sentence, bare-bones statements present a basis to grant his motion.

1. State Court Adjudication

With the statement regarding lack of state court findings of guilt for stolen items such as guns and vehicles (Doc. 213 at 1), Defendant does not directly challenge the sufficiency of his convictions on the federal charges related to stolen guns and vehicles, nor does he present any argument as to either the necessity or relevance of state court findings on the theft of the guns and vehicles. In Counts 5 and 6 of the Second Superseding Indictment, Defendant was charged with Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. (Doc. 47 at 5-6.) In Counts 7 and 8, he was charged with Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(i).

18 U.S.C. § 2312 provides as follows: "Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." As explained in the Court's charge to the jury, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was stolen, Defendant transported the vehicle or caused the...