United States v. Smith

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMARR SMITH, THOMAS IROKO AYODELE aka “ROKO”, and GILBERT MCTHUNEL, II DEFENDANTS

CRIMINAL No. 3:21-CR-107-SA

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

March 29, 2023

ORDER

SHARION AYCOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Following a four-day trial, a jury found each of the Defendants, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, guilty of conspiring to rob a United States Postal Worker in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and aiding and abetting each other to commit the robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114 (a). The jury reached its verdict on February 24, 2023. On March 1, 2023, Ayodele filed a Motion for New Trial [140] and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [141]. The same day McThunel filed a Motion for New Trial [ 142] and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [143]. On March 3, 2023, Smith also filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial [145]. After reviewing the Motions [140, 141, 142, 143, 145], record, rules, and applicable authorities, the Court is prepared to rule.

Applicable Standard

Under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court “must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 29(a). “When addressing motions for acquittal, the Court reviews the evidence as well as all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Young, 547 F.Supp.3d 575, 581 (N.D Tex. 2021) (citing United States v. Johnson, 990 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir. 2021)). “Courts uphold the verdict if a sound rational trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Johnson, 990 F.3d at 398).

Rule 33, on the other hand, provides that a court “may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 33(a). Unlike a motion for acquittal, “in a motion for new trial, the trial court may weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses during its consideration of the motion for new trial.” Young, 547 F.Supp.3d at 583 (citing United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d 889, 902 (5th Cir. 2006)). In the Fifth Circuit, “it is generally accepted that a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless there would be a miscarriage of justice or the weight of evidence preponderates against the verdict which has an adverse effect on the substantial rights of a defendant.” Id. (citing United States v. Wright, 534 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011)) (internal citation omitted). “A defendant's substantial rights are violated if an error affects the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” Id. (citing United States v. Slayton, 2019 WL 3892426, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 19, 2019)). “The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial.” Id. (citing Fuchs, 467 F.3d at 909).

Analysis

Each Defendant filed separate Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and Motions for New Trial [140, 141, 142, 143, 145]. The Defendants present identical arguments in their Motions for Judgment of Acquittal [141, 142, 145] However, only Ayodele and McThunel make the same arguments in their Motions for New Trial [140, 143]. Smith, on the other hand, in his Motion [145] argues that the Court erred in admitting the expert testimony of Chris Moody. The Court will address each issue in turn.^[1]

I. Motions for Acquittal [141, 142, 145]

As noted above the Defendants' Motions for Judgment of Acquittal [141, 142, 145] present the same arguments: (1) that the Court erred in failing to sustain the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case in chief; (2) that the verdict of the Jury was against the overwhelming weight of evidence and verdict evinced bias and prejudice against the Defendants; and (3) that the Defendants are entitled to a Judgment of Acquittal because of the failure of the prosecution to prove its case against the Defendants beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. See [141] at p. 1; [142] at p. 1; [145] at p. 1.

The Defendants first argue that the Court erred in failing to grant the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the Government's case in chief. At the close of the Government's case in chief all the Defendants moved for acquittal asserting that the Government had failed to prove the elements of the crimes charged. The motion was ultimately denied. When the Government concluded its case in chief, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence before the jury including documentation obtained via a geofence warrant that placed Smith and McThunel's devices near Lake Cormorant Post Office on the day the robbery occurred; cell phone records and cell tower location data showing the Defendants not only exchanging several phone calls with one another, but also showing that they traveled from Batesville to Lake Cormorant and back to Batesville on the day of the robbery; eyewitness testimony identifying Smith at the Lake Cormorant Post Office on the day in question and around the time of the crime; video surveillance that captured the robbery as well as vehicles that were identical to those owned by Ayodele and McThunel; and testimony from witnesses who knew Ayodele-one of whom communicated with Ayodele the day of the robbery.^[2] Furthermore, as the Government points out in its Response [146], there was evidence of social media records that established the Defendants knew each other and appeared to be friends. Considering the testimony and exhibits that were introduced at trial and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the Court finds that it did not err when it denied the Defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the Government's case in chief.

Next, the Defendants contend that their Motions for Judgment of Acquittal [141, 142, 145] should be granted because “the verdict of the of the Jury [] was against the overwhelming weight of evidence in this case and the verdict evinced bias and prejudice against the Defendant[s].” [141] at p. 1; [142] at p. 1; [145] at p. 1. As discussed above, there was an extensive amount of evidence introduced at trial, including witness testimony and exhibits, that supported the jury's guilty verdict. Therefore, the Court finds that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Lastly, the Defendants argue that their Motions for Judgment of Acquittal [141, 142, 145] should be granted because the Government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and “[t]he evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Id. The Fifth Circuit has held that when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence “the evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except guilt, and the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 669 (5th Cir. 1997)). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit stated, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, which will be upheld ‘if a rational trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt.'” United States v. White, 2022 WL 71825, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2022) (citing Johnson, 990 F.3d at 398).

The Indictment [1] charged each of the Defendants with one count of robbery and one count of conspiracy. In order to convict the Defendants of robbery, the Government had to prove that the Defendants took mail matter, money, or property of the United States from Sylvester Cobbs; that the Defendants took such property by means of force and violence, or by means of intimidation; and that the Defendants put the life of Sylvester Cobbs in danger by the use of a dangerous weapon. To support a conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the Government had to prove that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit the crime of robbery, that the Defendants knew of the unlawful purpose of the agreement, and that the Defendants participated in the conspiracy voluntarily.

As stated above, as well as in the Government's Response [146], there was a compelling amount of evidence from which the jury could find each Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts of the Indictment [1]. In addition to the evidence outlined above, during the trial, Sylvester Cobbs testified that the unknown assailant pulled a gun on him and beat him repeatedly before taking the registered mail bags. Cobbs testified that during the attack he thought the assailant was going to “beat his brains out.” The evidence presented at trial also established a relationship between all of the Defendants, including phone records showing several calls between the Defendants during the day and time of the robbery. Furthermore, vehicles identical to Ayodele's and McThunel's were identified in the video footage, and information obtained via the geofence warrant, subsequent Google warrants, and cell tower location data showed all three of the Defendants' devices near the Lake Cormorant Post Office around the time of the robbery. As the Government points out in its Response [146], Lake Cormorant, Mississippi is located in a rural part of the state with little to no attractions that would draw an outsider to the town. The Court finds that there was a compelling amount of evidence from which the jury could find each Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts of the Indictment [1].

As noted above, “when addressing motions for...