United States v. Wilson

663 F.Supp.3d 259

UNITED STATES of America, v. Deandre WILSON, Defendant.

1:19-CR-00155 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

Signed March 22, 2023

Michael Jason Adler, Brendan T. Cullinane, Government Attorneys, Joseph M. Tripi, Maeve Eileen Huggins, United States Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.

Daniel J. Henry, Jr., Villarini & Henry, L.L.P., Hamburg, NY, Kevin W. Spitler, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge

INTRODUCTION

On November 3, 2022, following a trial lasting six weeks with over 50 witnesses testifying, a jury found defendant Deandre Wilson ("Defendant") guilty of 15 counts relating to crimes involving the murders of three individuals on September 15, 2019, and drug trafficking, as follows: (1) narcotics conspiracy involving five kilograms or more of cocaine, one kilogram or more of heroin, and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana¹ in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count 1)²; (2) Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 (count 3); (3) murder while engaged in a narcotics conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (count 4); (4) discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2 (count 5); (5) two counts of discharge of a firearm causing death in furtherance of a crime of violence and drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1), and 2 (counts 6 and 7); (6) conspiracy to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (count 8); (7) two counts of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1) and 2 (counts 9 and 10); (8) conspiracy to use fire to commit a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(m) (count 11); (9) two counts of use of fire to commit a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(h) and 2 (counts 12 and 13); (10) conspiracy to damage and destroy a vehicle used in interstate commerce by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(n) (count 14); (11) damaging and destroying a vehicle used in interstate commerce by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i) and 2 (count 15); and (12) possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (count 17).³ (See Dkt. 558).

Presently pending is a motion timely filed by Defendant on December 22, 2022, to vacate his convictions and for a new trial, pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.⁴ (Dkt. 582). The government filed its response to Defendant's motion on February 14, 2023. (Dkt. 600). For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is denied.⁵

BACKGROUND

The parties' familiarity with the case is assumed, but some of the relevant evidence received at trial is summarized below as background information for purposes of resolving Defendant's motion.

As previously explained, the charges against Defendant involve drug trafficking and the murders of three individuals—Miguel Anthony Valentin-Colon ("Miguel"), Nicole Marie Merced-Plaud ("Nicole"), and Dhamyl Roman-Audiffred ("Dhamyl"). Miguel, Nicole, and Dhamyl were drug dealers, and in September 2019 they traveled from Florida to Buffalo, New York, in a white Chrysler Pacifica minivan. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on September 15, 2019, Miguel drove the minivan with Nicole, Dhamyl, and N.V.C. (Miguel and Nicole's three year-old son) as passengers, to a house at 4 Roebling Avenue on the East Side of the City of Buffalo ("4 Roebling"). Dhamyl went inside 4 Roebling to sell a kilogram of cocaine to co-defendant Jariel Cobb ("Cobb"). Miguel, Nicole, and N.V.C. remained in the minivan parked in the driveway. Defendant was also present inside 4 Roebling, intending to participate in the drug deal. Cobb's brother and co-defendant James Reed ("Reed") was also there to "count money."

Evidence presented during the trial revealed that Defendant killed Dhamyl, and then immediately exited 4 Roebling and shot and killed Miguel and Nicole as they sat in the minivan with N.V.C. (See Dkt. 590 at 203-09 (Cobb's testimony); see also Dkt. 536 at 162-65 (Reed's testimony)).⁶ Defendant then drove the minivan to an isolated location at or near 338 Scajaquada Street, where he left N.V.C. in the minivan with his parents' dead bodies. During that time, Cobb and Reed disposed of Dhamyl's body by dismembering and burning her remains in a bonfire behind 225 Box Avenue ("225 Box"). Approximately eight hours later, at about 2:35 a.m. on September 16, 2019, Defendant returned with Cobb to retrieve the minivan, and with N.V.C. and his parents' dead bodies still in the minivan, Defendant drove across the City of Buffalo to the rear of 111 Tonawanda Street, with Cobb driving to the same location in his red Kia sedan. At approximately 3:00 a.m., Cobb and Defendant doused the minivan with gasoline and lit it on fire. N.V.C. was removed from the minivan before it was torched, but Miguel and Nicole's dead bodies remained inside. Defendant and Cobb then abandoned N.V.C. on a front porch at 63 Potomac Avenue in the City of Buffalo.

Several individuals were charged in the case, including Defendant, Cobb, and Reed who were charged for their involvement in the events that transpired on September 15 and 16, 2019. Both Reed and Cobb entered guilty pleas and agreed to cooperate with the government, including by testifying at Defendant's trial regarding the events of September 15 and 16, 2019.

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 29 Motion

Defendant raises three arguments in support of his Rule 29 motion: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the Court erred when it allowed into evidence video interview statements of N.V.C.; and (3) the Court erred when it denied the admissibility of defense witness Richard Brady's federal grand jury testimony. (Dkt. 582 at 4-28). As explained below, none of these arguments justify granting the relief Defendant seeks under Rule 29.

1. Legal Standard

Rule 29(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "[a] defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict . . . ." The standard on a motion for a judgment of acquittal is stringent, and a defendant claiming that he was convicted based on insufficient evidence "bears a very heavy burden." United States v. Blackwood, 366 F. App'x 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir. 2002)). "In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the government." United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, "[a]ll permissible inferences must be drawn in the government's favor." Id.

"If any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime, the conviction must stand." United States v. Puzzo, 928 F.2d 1356, 1361 (2d Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). "The test is whether the jury, drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, may fairly and logically have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quotation omitted). The evidence must be viewed "in its totality, not in isolation," United States v. Huezo, 546 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), "as each fact may gain color from others," Guadagna, 183 F.3d at 130. The Court may enter a judgment of acquittal only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime is "nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citation omitted).

A district court must be careful not to usurp the role of the jury. "Rule 29(c) does not provide the trial court with an opportunity to 'substitute its own determination of . . . the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn for that of the jury.' " Id. at 129 (alteration in original and quoting United States v. Mariani, 725 F.2d 862, 865 (2d Cir. 1984)). "A jury's verdict will be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support it." United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1324 (2d Cir. 1987). The government is not required "to preclude every reasonable hypothesis which is consistent with innocence." United States v. Chang An-Lo, 851 F.2d 547, 554 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Fiore, 821 F.2d 127, 128 (2d Cir. 1987)).

2. Video Interview Statements of N.V.C. and Richard Brady Grand Jury Testimony

The Court turns first to Defendant's arguments pertaining to the video interview statements of N.V.C. and Richard Brady's grand jury testimony. With respect to these issues, the Court ruled from the bench on the admissibility of N.V.C.'s video statement in advance of trial, and the inadmissibility of Brady's grand jury testimony during the trial. The Court followed up on its oral rulings with written decisions memorializing and further explaining its reasoning. (See Dkt. 569 (Decision and Order memorializing the Court's ruling on Defendant's request to admit grand jury testimony of Richard Brady, dated November 21, 2022) & Dkt. 570 (Decision and Order memorializing the Court's ruling on the government's motion to admit at trial N.V.C.'s September 16, 2019 recorded interview statement at the Child Advocacy Center, dated November 22, 2022)).

Defendant's arguments raised in connection with his Rule 29 motion as to these issues are already addressed by the aforementioned Decision and Orders. Defendant contends in connection with his Rule 29 motion that the video statement of N.V.C. is testimonial and its admission violated the Confrontation Clause (Dkt. 582 at 15-19), which is addressed in the November 22, 2022 Decision and Order (see Dkt. 570 at 6-13). Similarly, with respect to the preclusion of Richard Brady's grand jury testimony, Defendant contends that the Court erred in precluding the admission of the grand jury testimony...