United States v. Gamble

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAWRENCE GAMBLE, Defendant.

Criminal No. 19-348 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

February 6, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Defendant Lawrence Gamble's Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Revoke Detention Order, ECF No. 28. Mr. Gamble previously filed a Motion to Revoke Detention Order, ECF No. 21, which this Court denied, see Dec. 17, 2019 Order, ECF No. 24; Dec. 17, 2019 Mem. Op., ECF No. 25. Mr. Gamble now asks this Court to reconsider its December 17, 2019 Order denying that Motion. He also argues that his pretrial detention violates due process. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions,¹ relevant legal authorities, and the record, the Court shall DENY Mr. Gamble's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court previously explained the relevant background in this case in its December 17, 2019 Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 25. The Court reincorporates that discussion and repeats much of it below. While Mr. Gamble does not necessarily contest most of the below facts, he does highlight several other facts, which the Court also addresses further below.

A. Factual Background

Mr. Gamble's case is related to another case in this Court in which Rodregiz Antwon Cole is charged with the sex trafficking of a child by force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). When law enforcement executed a search warrant on Mr. Cole's residence on April 11, 2019, they found Mr. Gamble and one of the witnesses, Witness 1, standing near a Toyota Avalon that belonged to Mr. Gamble and was parked outside the residence. May 31, 2019 Detention Memorandum ("First Detention Order"), ECF No. 7, at 3. Mr. Gamble and others appeared to be packing Mr. Cole's belongings into the Avalon. Id. Mr. Gamble gave permission for the vehicle to be searched. Id. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement found bags that contained items with evidentiary value. Id. This included "pimp-related clothing and other items, such as a pimp cup and a 2018 Pimp of the Year trophy." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It also contained vehicle tags for a gray Lexus registered to Witness 1 that was also parked outside the residence. Id. Investigators later discovered that Mr. Gamble had called a tow track to remove the Lexus and a BMW also parked in front of the residence. Id.

Investigators also found a critical piece of evidence in the Avalon: A sonogram "was found in the center console of Defendant's Toyota Avalon." Id. The sonogram is important because it contained the true name and birth date of a woman referred to as K.M., who represented herself as an underage victim of sex trafficking when she was stopped by local law enforcement on April 5,2019. Id. at 2. When interviewed by law enforcement at the scene, Mr. Gamble denied putting Mr. Cole's property in his car and denied any knowledge of the sonogram. Id. at 3.

Witness 1, who was a childhood friend of Mr. Cole's and who had a child by him, began cooperating in return for immunity the same day. Id. Witness 1 explained that Mr. Cole had called her to remove his property from his residence in Baltimore and to enlist the help of Mr. Gamble, whom she understood to be a close friend of Mr. Cole's. Id. at 3-4. Call records demonstrate that Witness 1 first communicated with Mr. Gamble on April 7, 2019, and spoke with him again on April 8, 2019. Id. at 4. Witness 1 also stated that Mr. Gamble "told her about the sonogram, when in an early phone conversation he said that he had gone to the Baltimore residence in part to look for the document." Id. She denied ever seeing the sonogram or having knowledge about it being in Mr. Gamble's Avalon. Id. In a recorded call on April 9, 2019, Witness 1 asked Mr. Cole about the sonogram and stated that Mr. Gamble had told her about it. Id.

Another witness, Witness 2, also cooperated in return for immunity. Id. at 5. Witness 2 identified herself as a prostitute for Mr. Cole who had shared a bedroom with K.M. Id. Witness 2 explained that she and Witness 3 had gone to the Baltimore residence to look for K.M. Id. After they returned, Witness 3 allowed three men, including Mr. Gamble, into the residence. Id. Mr. Gamble ordered Witness 2 and Witness 3 "to give him the money they had made that morning, pack their belongings, and leave." Id. According to Witness 2, this money had been earned from prostitution, and so Mr. Gamble's requesting the money suggested that he was aware that Mr. Cole operated as a pimp. Id. at 8.

B. Procedural Background

The Indictment, which was returned on October 11, 2019, charges Mr. Gamble with three counts: conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1), (c)(2), (k); obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), (c)(2); and obstruction of enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (which prohibits sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(d). Indictment, ECF No. 17. Mr. Gamble was first arrested on May 17, 2019. See Complaint, ECF No. 1; May 17, 2019 Arrest Warrant, ECF No. 4. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey held a preliminary detention hearing on May 21 and May 22, 2019. See May 21, 2019 and May 22, 2019 Minute Orders. At the hearing, he heard testimony from Detective Jeremiah Johnson, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department. First Detention Order at 1. Magistrate Judge Harvey found that Mr. Gamble had not rebutted the presumption of dangerousness and that the relevant factors weighed heavily against his release; he therefore ordered Mr. Gamble detained prior to trial. See id. He also found that Mr. Gamble had one prior felony conviction for attempted robbery from 2006 and a series of misdemeanors and other violations, including for marijuana possession and driving without a license. Id.

Mr. Gamble then moved to reconsider Magistrate Judge Harvey's Pretrial Detention Order on September 6, 2019. Def.'s Mot. to Recons. Pretrial Detention Order, ECF No. 13. He contested that he presented a danger to the community. Id. at 5. Magistrate Judge Harvey held a hearing on this motion on September 27, 2019 and denied Mr. Gamble's motion. See Sept. 27, 2019 Minute Order. As the magistrate judge explained in the relevant Minute Order, Mr. Gamble largely reiterated his prior arguments and advanced only one new argument that Mr. Gamble had a possibility of employment if he was released. See Sept. 30, 2017 Minute Order ("Second Detention Order"). However, this did not change the magistrate judge's conclusion that Mr. Gamble poseda danger to the community due to the nature of his charges, and the new evidence accordingly did not change the magistrate judge's initial determination. See id.

Mr. Gamble then asked that this Court revoke his pretrial detention on December 6, 2019. Mot. to Revoke Detention Order, ECF No. 21. The Court denied his motion. See Dec. 17, 2019 Order, ECF No. 24; Dec. 17, 2019 Mem. Op, ECF No. 25. At bottom, the Court found that Mr. Gamble had not overcome the presumption of dangerousness raised by the Indictment and that the other relevant factors, on balance, also weighed in favor of pretrial detention. Mr. Gamble now seeks reconsideration of that decision. He also argues that his detention violates due process. The Court, upon reviewing Mr. Gamble's instant motion, requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the due process issue. See Jan. 30, 2020 Order, ECF No 31. The parties promptly provided additional briefing on that issue.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion for Reconsideration of Interlocutory Decisions

"Although the Federal Rules do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration in criminal cases, the Supreme Court has recognized, in dicta, the utility of such motions." United States v. Ferguson, 574 F. Supp. 2d 111, 113 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8 (1976)). "This Court has adopted such a philosophy by regularly entertaining motions for reconsideration in a criminal context, applying the analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." In re Extradition of Liuksila, 133 F. Supp. 3d 249, 255 (D.D.C. 2016); see also United States v. Sunia, 643 F. Supp. 2d 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2009) (listing cases applying standards from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in reconsideration context).

The Court's decision to deny Defendant's initial Motion to Revoke Pretrial Detention was an interlocutory decision. As it has before, the Court again shares the view in this district that amotion to reconsider an interlocutory decision may be granted "as justice requires." See, e.g., Coulibaly v. Tillerson, 278 F. Supp. 3d 294, 301 (D.D.C. 2017) (Contreras, J.); United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc., 321 F.R.D. 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2017) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); Sunia, 643 F. Supp. 2d at 60-61; Singh v. George Washington Univ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005) (Lamberth, J.) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004) (Lamberth, J.)). The proponent carries the burden of proving "that some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial of reconsideration," and accordingly persuading the Court that in order to vindicate justice it must reconsider its decision. Dynamic Visions, Inc., 321 F.R.D. at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540 (D.D.C. 2005)).

"In general, a court will grant a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order only when the movant demonstrates: '(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the first order.'" Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F. Supp. 2d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Keystone Tobacco Co., Inc. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235, 237 (D.D.C. 2003)), aff'd, No. 09-5349, 2010 WL 1632965 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 2010). Justice may also require reconsideration "'where a controlling or significant change in the law or facts has occurred since the submission of the issue to the court.'"...