United States v. Thomas

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. DELROY A. THOMAS, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 2015-0039

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

July 10, 2020

Attorneys:

Alphonso G. Andrews, Jr., Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For the Government

Martial A. Webster, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis, Chief Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Delroy Thomas' ("Defendant") Motion for a New Trial ("Motion") (Dkt. No. 336) and the Government's Opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 340). For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on July 18, 2019 of: Use of Interstate Commerce Facility in Commission of Murder for Hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a); Attempted Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 922(a)(1); and Attempted Retaliation Against a Witness, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1510(a)(1). (Dkt. Nos. 334, 1).¹Thereafter, Defendant filed the instant Motion, and the Government filed its opposition. (Dkt. Nos. 336, 340).

A. Underlying Facts

In support of his Motion—which Defendant brings pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—Defendant asserts that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated because the jury allegedly "considered extraneous evidence." (Dkt. No. 336-1 at 2). Additionally, Defendant argues that he has newly discovered evidence that the Government allegedly suppressed. Id. at 6. To place Defendant's arguments into context, the following summarizes the relevant facts developed at trial.

Special Agent Tracey Gardner ("Special Agent Gardner") of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") was the "handling agent" for Jason Navarro ("Navarro"), a former inmate at Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility ("Golden Grove") who was a confidential source for DEA from October 2013 through March 2015. During that time, Navarro provided Special Agent Gardner with "general knowledge of criminal activity," specifically concerning contraband that was being smuggled into the prison.

On March 9, 2015, Navarro called Special Agent Gardner to inform her that he had been approached by Defendant, who was also incarcerated at Golden Grove at the time, and that Defendant had asked him if he knew of a hitman that could kill the witnesses in his Superior Court case. Upon receiving this information, Special Agent Gardner began an investigation; verified that Defendant had a case in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands; and verified that the names of the witnesses in the Superior Court case matched the names Navarro had provided. With the assistance of Navarro, Special Agent Gardner recorded telephone conversationsbetween Navarro and Defendant, which were three-way calls made by Navarro to Defendant, with Special Agent Gardner listening on the line.

During one of the recorded conversations, Navarro asked Defendant if he was serious about the murder-for-hire. Defendant responded in the affirmative. Navarro continued by telling Defendant that, if he was serious, he had to send him photographs of the witnesses that he wanted killed. Defendant sent photographs to Navarro on March 10, 2015. Upon receipt of the photographs, DEA identified the individuals in the photographs as Defendant's alleged minor rape victim in his Superior Court case and the alleged victim's mother.

In the recorded calls, Navarro and Defendant also discussed the details of the murder-for-hire scheme, including the price that Defendant was willing to pay for the hitman. There were also discussions about a down payment as well as the drop off of the down payment, which Navarro set up with DEA.

It was Defendant's argument that Navarro and Golden Grove Corrections Officer Lucien Lake ("Officer Lake") plotted to frame him. Defendant testified that late one night, Officer Lake opened his cell door and Navarro walked into his cell with a knife and showed him a photograph of Defendant's two sisters and a video of his mother. According to Defendant, Navarro threatened Defendant that, if he did not go along with Navarro's plan to get a deal from DEA, Defendant's family "would be dead." Supposedly, a deal with DEA would result from Navarro providing DEA with information regarding criminal activity. Defendant testified that Navarro told him what he had to say in the telephone conversations with Navarro in order to accomplish that end. Defendant further testified that he was aware that DEA was listening in on his phone conversations with Navarro, but that he was going along with the "act" because he was fearful for his life and for the safety of his loved ones. Defendant also testified that Officer Lake wasinvolved in the money drop. Specifically, Defendant testified that Officer Lake retrieved the money from Navarro's girlfriend and then passed it on to an individual named Shelbie Beazer.

Both Special Agent Gardner and Navarro testified that there was no "deal" between Navarro and DEA for the information he provided about Defendant. They further testified that Officer Lake was not involved in the money drop. Shelbie Beazer testified that Defendant asked her to pick up and drop off some money and that she followed Defendant's instructions as to where to get the money and where to drop it off, although she did not know what the money was for. The money was dropped off to DEA agents—unbeknownst to Ms. Beazer—as part of the law enforcement undercover operation.

The Government also presented text messages that Defendant sent to Navarro containing photographs of the two female witnesses; text messages in which Defendant mentioned the two female witnesses by name; and a text message from Defendant stating that he will put a hit on the two female witnesses. In addition, the Government presented phone recordings between Defendant and Navarro, including a call in which Defendant referred to wanting the two witnesses killed in a murder-for-hire; another call in which Defendant discussed not taking any chances; a third call in which Defendant stated, "I want them off" and referred to getting a gun and having soldiers out there that could make the money drop; and a fourth call in which Defendant said that "this thing going down for sure," and stated that if Navarro wouldn't do it, he would find someone else. Additionally, the Government introduced text messages that Defendant sent prior to both the alleged threats by Navarro that Defendant claimed occurred and the recorded conversations. These text messages stated that Defendant "had this F-ing massacre up his sleeve"; identified Defendant's alleged victim and her mother; and expressed thatDefendant was putting money away in case he needed to put a "hit" on his alleged victim and her mother.

B. Newspaper Article

The jury trial for the instant case began on July 8, 2019. (Dkt. No. 336-1 at 2). The Court gave instructions in which it stated, inter alia, that the members of the jury were not to watch, read, or listen to any news reports concerning the trial on the television, radio, internet, or newspaper. The Court further elaborated that the only information members of the jury could consider when deciding the case was the evidence presented in court during the trial. The Court gave these instructions to the members of the jury after the jury was selected—but not yet sworn—and was being released for the night,² as well as the following morning after the jury was sworn.³ The Court referred to these instructions as the "recess instructions," explaining that "[w]e're going to refer to [the detailed version of these instructions] as the recess instructions. It'svery important that you adhere to it, and every time we break, I'm going to tell you, recess instructions are in full force and effect, and this is what I'm going to mean by the recess instructions." The Court made it a practice to remind jurors that the recess instructions were in full force and effect whenever the Court stood in recess, at times making elaborations such as "no reading anything or anything of the sort." The Court would also periodically ask the members of the jury if they remembered the detailed version of the instructions or if they needed the Court to repeat them, and the jury would respond "[w]e remember."

On July 9, 2019, the Government entered into evidence a stipulation between the parties that informed the jury that in 2015, a pending Information in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands existed that charged Defendant with a felony offense. The stipulation noted that "P.E. and Felicia Bennerson were witnesses in that matter." Id. However, by agreement of the parties and with the Court's approval, the stipulation did not specify the particulars of the offense in order to avoid any prejudice to Defendant. (Dkt. No. 340 at 2).

All evidence in the case was presented by July 15, 2019. Id. Jury deliberations commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. on July 16, 2019, and ended for the evening at approximately 6:00 p.m., with the Court reminding the jury to abide by their recess instructions. Id. at 1; (Dkt. No. 340 at 2). The jury commenced deliberations at approximately 9:00 a.m. on July 17, 2019. (Dkt. No. 336-1 at 1). Later that day, the jury was called into court, reminded of their recess instructions, and released at approximately 2:15 p.m. because one of the jurors had a medical appointment. Id. The jury continued its deliberation on July 18, 2019 at approximately 9:00 a.m. and returned a verdict in the case at approximately 10:30 a.m.

On July 17, 2019, the day before the jury reached its verdict, the Virgin Islands Daily News published an article titled "Accused rapist on trial in St. Croix murder-for-hire plot." (Dkt.No. 340 at 2; Dkt. No. 336-2). The article is one page long and starts out by stating that a "St. Croix man" was currently on trial in U.S. District Court for raping a minor and attempting to have her killed to keep her from...