United States v. Cornelius

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEONTIS CORNELIUS

No. 3:21-CR-90 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

November 29, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E DEGUILIO, Judge.

In the early hours of May 13, 2020, Defendant Leontis Cornelius was having a family get-together when an SUV pulled up and shots were fired toward the party. Mr. Cornelius fired back from a pistol, fending off the attack. Just over a year later, a police officer was responding to a domestic disturbance call when he saw Mr. Cornelius carrying a rifle. Mr. Cornelius who had been convicted of a felony, was charged in a superseding indictment with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. After trial before a jury, he was found guilty of both counts.

The Court denied Mr. Cornelius's original motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, but Mr. Cornelius has now renewed that motion based upon his two affirmative defenses. He has also filed a motion for mistrial and for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. That motion is based upon two principal arguments. First he argues that during closing argument the Government misrepresented the evidence at trial by arguing that the defendant possessed each weapon prior to the presence of any threat. Relatedly, he argues that the Court committed error when it denied his objections to those arguments. Second, Mr. Cornelius argues that during the rebuttal closing argument the Government engaged in racially demeaning imagery against one of Mr. Cornelius's witnesses, which could not be remedied due to the supposed wholesale prohibition against further objections.

As Mr. Cornelius's arguments have no merit, the Court will deny the motions.

A. Relevant Facts

For purposes of both Criminal Rule 29 and 33, the evidence at trial is considered in the light most favorable to the Government with all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor. United States v. Fitzpatrick, 32 F.4th 644, 648-49 (7th Cir. 2022) (“In a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge after a jury verdict, we review the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.”) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420, 424 (7th Cir. 2021)); United States v. Alanis, 265 F.3d 576, 591 (7th Cir. 2001) (when considering a motion for a new trial, “[w]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor”).

(1) Defendant's prior convictions

Before 2020, Mr. Cornelius had been convicted of four felony offenses. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 211-17; Gov't Exs. 10, 11, 12, 13.) The last felony conviction occurred in 2004, in this district, for possessing a firearm as a felon. (Trial. Tr. Vol. 1 at 215.) In that case, Mr. Cornelius pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea agreement, acknowledged that he “was a convicted felon at the time [he] knowingly possessed a firearm [on] March 4, 2004. (Id.) He was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment. (Id. at 216.) Upon release from prison, he began a term of supervised release and was informed by his probation officer that he could not “possess a firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.” (Id.) He was told this again upon completing his term of supervised release. (Id. at 217.)

(2) May 2020

On May 13, 2020, just before midnight, South Bend Police responded to a Shot Spotter alert on Elmer Street. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 156.) Mr. Cornelius was outside with members of his family and guests when a car pulled up and its occupants started shooting toward the group. Mr. Cornelius fired back in self-defense with a Smith & Wesson pistol. One of the responding officers was Sgt. Paul Daley who spoke with Mr. Cornelius and wrote a police report. When Sgt. Daley arrived, Mr. Cornelius was still holding the pistol. (Id. at 157.) Detective Bruno Martinsky found out about the shooting several days later after receiving Sgt. Daley's report.

Six days later, on May 19, Detective Martinsky called Mr. Cornelius about the shooting and confirmed that he had used the gun the week prior and still had the gun. (Id. at 142-147.) Detective Martinsky then arranged for a meeting at Mr. Cornelius's residence so he could pick up the gun. When he arrived, Mr. Cornelius handed over a retail package with a Smith & Wesson pistol inside. (Id. at 158.)

(3) June 2021

Around 2 a.m. on June 27, 2021, South Bend Police Officer Garrett Payne was called to a house on Huey Street for a disturbance. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 163-164.) When Officer Payne arrived, he found Mr. Cornelius walking from behind a house to the front yard and carrying a rifle. (Id. at 166.) Officer Payne asked him, “What's going on?” and, upon seeing the gun, yelled, “drop it, drop it, drop it.” (Id. at 166-69, Gov't Ex.1, Payne's Body Camera Video at 0:20-30.) Mr. Cornelius dropped the weapon and responded, “I've got a license. I've got a license.” (Trial Tr. vol. 1 at 166-167, 170, 181; Gov't Ex. 1, Body Camera Video at 0:30-3). Mr. Cornelius also told Officer Payne that no one else was in the house, he did not live there, there were no other guns in the home, and that this was a “child dispute.” (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 167-168; Gov't Ex. 1, Body Camera Video at 0:40-1:02; 1:25-30.) A moment later, Mr. Cornelius continued: “You good, you good, bro” (Gov't Ex. 1, Body Camera Video at 1:10-17), and “[i]t is nothing, I promise you. Y'all good” (id. at 1:30-40).

Officer Payne told another responding officer, Shawn Fredenburg, to get the rifle. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 180-181; Gov't Ex. 2, Fredenburg body camera video.) Officer Fredenburg picked up the rifle and started clearing the rifle to unload the ammunition. Seeing this, Mr. Cornelius exclaimed, “Please don't do that. Don't do that. That's $40 a round. Don't do that. That's $40 a round.” (Trial Tr. Vol 1 at 188; Gov't Ex. 2, Fredenburg body camera video at 0:35-42.) Officer Fredenburg testified that, when he responded to the call, he believed someone was holding a gun to a person's head. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 179.) In his interactions with the two officers, Mr. Cornelius said nothing about “somebody holding a gun to his head” or about him “wrestling the gun away from another person.”^[1](Id. at 176.)

(4) Mr. Cornelius's Defenses

During his case-in-chief, Mr. Cornelius offered through his own testimony and the testimony of Corey Miller the affirmative defenses of self-defense and public authority.

Mr. Cornelius testified that, on May 13, 2020, he was grilling outside of his home, celebrating his sister-in-law's birthday. His brothers, who had recently been released from prison, were also there. (Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 340.) According to Mr. Cornelius, his wife gave the sister-in-law a .45 handgun as a birthday present. (Id. at 340-41.) Mr. Cornelius did not know when and where the gun was purchased and whether it was presented in a wrapped box.

(Id. at. 374-75.) At some point, an unfamiliar car drove by, circled back, and the occupants opened fire. (Id. at 341-43.) The assailants got out of the car and said, “let's get out and walk them down,” which Mr. Cornelius knew was slang for, “let's go up and shoot them in the head.” (Id. 344-45. Sheltered behind a car, Mr. Cornelius looked for something to defend himself with and saw his sister-in-law's purse with the gun box hanging out. He grabbed the gun and tried to shoot but nothing happened. (Id. at 345.) He then racked it, stood up, and fired at the shooters, who fled in the car. (Id. at 345-46.)

On cross-examination, Mr. Cornelius did not deny that, in his statements to authorities, he omitted any mention of the assailants getting out of the car or grabbing his sister-in-law's gun; instead, he testified that he told them “everything that I felt was relevant.” (Id. at 377.) According to Mr. Cornelius, when Detective Martinsky tried to retrieve the gun six days later, he had to call his sister-in-law to get it back. His sister-in-law brought the gun over, and he gave it to Detective Martinsky. (Id. at 352.)

Mr. Cornelius called his friend, Corey Miller, to testify about the second incident.^[2] Mr. Miller said he was with Mr. Cornelius on the night of June 27, 2021, when Mr. Cornelius told him that they should continue their partying elsewhere. (Id. at 299-300.) Mr. Miller's girlfriend was also with them and she had to visit or pick up her daughter at a house on Huey Street. As a result, Mr. Miller, his girlfriend, and Mr. Cornelius drove to Huey Street. (Id. at 300-301.) When they got there, Mr. Miller and his girlfriend got out of the vehicle and an argument ensued between them and the father of the girlfriend's daughter. (Id. at 306.) Hearing the argument, Mr. Cornelius joined the group, and at this moment another man with a rifle came from around the house. The man stood three feet away from Mr. Miller and Mr. Cornelius and pointed the rifle to their heads. Mr. Cornelius snatched the rifle out of the man's hands and the man ran away behind the house. (Id. at 307-309.) Mr. Miller testified that Mr. Cornelius dropped the rifle “as soon as he snatched it” and just as the police pulled up. (Id. at 328.) When police arrived, Mr. Miller did not tell them about the man holding a gun to their heads. (Id. at 322.)

Mr Cornelius's testimony was similar to that of Mr. Miller. Mr. Cornelius said he was celebrating an award of contracts from the City of South Bend and his upcoming birthday. (Id. at 357-58.) He wanted to continue celebrating with his friend, Mr. Miller. (Id. at 358-359, 385.) Once arriving at Huey Street, he got out of the car upon hearing the commotion, when a man appeared and pointed a gun at his head. Mr. Cornelius instinctively grabbed the gun and the man ran away. (...