United States v. Garnes

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. QUADRI GARNES, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cr-00487-NRM

United States District Court, E.D. New York

July 12, 2023

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NINA R. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On November 25, 2022, Defendant Quadri Garnes was indicted on one count of threatening to assault and murder employees of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”)-his former employer-in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115 (a)(1)(B). Indictment, ECF No. 18 at 1. The Complaint, dated October 6, 2022, alleged that Defendant made statements on a recorded phone call with employees of the New York State Department of Labor (“DOL”) on the morning of September 29, 2022, that “threatene[ed] to assault and cause serious bodily injury to one or more United States officials by use of a dangerous weapon, with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with such officials while engaged in the performance of their official duties, and with intent to retaliate against such officials on account of the performance of their official duties.” Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1.

Following his arrest and arraignment on the complaint on October 13 2022, Defendant was ordered detained pending trial. See Order of Detention, ECF No. 10. His counsel subsequently submitted a new bail package for this Court's review and approval, and with the Government's consent, Defendant was released on bond following a hearing before this Court on November 29, 2022.

On June 16, 2023, a superseding indictment was returned, charging Defendant additionally with “transmit[ting] in interstate commerce one or more communications containing one or more threats to injure the person of another, to wit communications threatening employees of the New York State Department of Labor” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 23 ¶ 2. The additional charge in the superseding indictment arises from the same course of conduct as the charge set forth in the original Complaint-i.e., the recorded phone call that Defendant made to the New York State Department of Labor on September 29, 2022. See id. ¶¶ 1-2. Defendant does not dispute that he made the phone call in question (indeed, he identified himself by his name, date of birth, and Social Security Number at the outset of the call see Defendant's Motion in Limine, Ex. A, ECF No. 27-1 at 1), but asserts that he is not guilty of the crimes charged herein by the Government.

The parties each filed motions in limine on June 23, 2023 in anticipation of trial. See Defendant's Motion in Limine (“Def.'s MIL”), ECF No. 27; Government's Motions in Limine, (“Gov.'s MIL”), ECF No. 26. Pursuant to a briefing schedule jointly requested by the parties and adopted by the Court, the motions were fully submitted on July 5, 2023. The Court heard additional oral argument with respect to certain motions during the final pretrial conference conducted by telephone on July 7, 2023. See Minute Entry, 7/7/2023.

At the Government's request-in order to provide the Government counsel with sufficient time to redact the recording in question from their audio and other exhibits prior to trial, if needed-the Court issued a brief text order shortly following the final pretrial conference regarding its decision on Defendant's motion to exclude certain statements he made in the phone call at issue that referenced his prior criminal convictions and incarceration. See Electronic Order dated 7/7/2023.

Prior to commencing jury selection on July 10, 2023, the Court ruled from the bench on the remaining motions in limine filed by both parties; denied, after due consideration, a motion to reconsider its grant of Defendant's motion to exclude that the Government filed by letter brief dated July 9, 2023; and set forth for the record its reasoning as to the disposition of that motion, as well as the other outstanding motions by both parties.

Jury selection commenced on July 10, 2023 and concluded on July 11, 2023 with the selection of twelve jurors and four alternates. See Minute Entries, 7/10/2023 and 7/11/20223. The jury was not sworn. Opening statements are now scheduled to begin, once the jury is empaneled, on July 17, 2023. This Memorandum and Order follows.

BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the relevant facts. In brief, the Government alleges that Defendant-a former USPS employee who was, at the time of these events unemployed and seeking to collect benefits accrued during his USPS tenure-violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 115(a)(1)(B) and 875(c) by making certain threats in a recorded telephone call with the DOL on September 29, 2022, whom he called regarding his pending request for benefits. Specifically, the Government alleges, inter alia, that the following statements that Defendant made during his phone call with the DOL violated §§ 115(a)(1)(B) and 875(c):

• “If I go back to the post office, I'm gonna shoot somebody.”

• “[Y]'all gonna make me go to jail for killing somebody. Or prison.”

• “And I'm just like curious as to how to do it before I make a, a hasty reaction on getting my money.”

• “Do the city want me to kill five or six different people? And I'm putting it out there on, cause I know this is recorded because if I was to do something like that, at least when they start going through the records, they know why it was done.”

• “Just remember my name. You might see it on TV tonight. You just remember my name!”

• “No, believe me, I'll be at the New York State Department of Labor down on, on, on Schermerhorn or Livingston Street and I will make a big fucking deal out of it.”

• “So I gotta go to the post office and shoot the post office, up. Right? That's what it, that's what it means, I gotta shoot the post office up?”

• “Somebody might get shot today coming out of Department of Labor.”

Gov.'s MIL at 3-4.

In his motion, Defendant does not challenge the admissibility of these statements. But he does seek to preclude the Government from introducing certain other statements he made on the phone call with the DOL, in which he referenced certain aspects of his own criminal history and his time spent incarcerated. Specifically, Defendant seeks to preclude the following statements: (1) “I got 18, two and a half years in jail. I got 18 and a half years. No, listen, listen, I have eight”; (2) “to make myself not stop from robbing a bank they're 18 and a half years in jail”; (3) “Look, look, I got mad felons. I got like nine, 10 felonies, right?”; (4) “Because listen didn't I just tell you I got 18 and a half years in jail. It don't bother me to be in jail”; and (5) “And I told you I got 18 and nine years all together in jail, all together in prison. Not Rikers Island, state prison, state prison, Clinton, Attica, Elmira, state prison. Maybe where your, where, where, where, where your place is in Albany.” Def.'s MIL at 3-4.^[1]

In its motion, the Government makes several applications regarding the parties' anticipated trial evidence. First, it seeks to admit evidence of Defendant's previous criminal history and convictions in its direct case. Gov.'s MIL at 8-12.^[2] Second, the Government seeks to preclude the defense from introducing evidence or argument about (i) whether Defendant intended to carry out the threats at issue in this trial, and (ii) whether Defendant is a peaceful person or has non-violent tendencies. Gov.'s MIL at 12-15. Third, the Government seeks to preclude the defense from presenting evidence or argument about any purported First Amendment right to make threats. Gov.'s MIL at 15-16. Fourth, the Government seeks to preclude the defense from arguing that Defendant was selectively prosecuted. Gov.'s MIL at 17. Fifth, the Government seeks to preclude the defense from presenting evidence and argument concerning Defendant's possible punishment. Gov.'s MIL at 18. Sixth, the Government seeks to admit certain of Defendant's purported statements to law enforcement following his arrest that it argues evidence “consciousness of guilt,” but preclude Defendant from introducing his own out of court statements during that same post-arrest interview, Gov.'s MIL at 18-19; for his part, Defendant argues that if the Court grants the Government's application, the Court should grant his cross-motion to introduce certain other statements made by him in those same interviews, which he contends are exculpatory, under the “rule of completeness.” Def.'s Opp'n to Gov.'s MIL, ECF No. 31 at 3; see Fed.R.Evid. 106. Seventh, the Government seeks leave to impeach Defendant with certain prior criminal convictions if he testifies at trial, each of which are more than ten years old, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b). Gov.'s MIL at 20-23.

DISCUSSION

18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) provides that

[w]hoever . . . threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished[.]

18 U.S.C. § 115 (a)(1)(B). “Although the statute criminalizes certain speech, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not afford protection to speech that constitutes a ‘true threat.'” United States v. Santos, 801 Fed.Appx. 814, 816 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969)).

Until recently, the Second Circuit's test for whether conduct “amounts to a true threat” was “an objective one-namely, whether an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context of...