United States v. Yandell

1

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Yandell, Daniel Troxell and William Sylvester, Defendants.

No. 2:19-cr-00107-KJM

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 16, 2024

ORDER

For the reasons explained in this order, the court grants the United States' motion for an express finding of the existence of a conspiracy for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).

The United States charges defendants Ronald Yandell, Daniel Troxell and William Sylvester-allegedly members and leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood-with conspiracy to commit murder and to distribute controlled substances in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), among other things. Jury selection for the trial on the charges against these defendants began on February 20 2024, and trial began a few days later, on February 26, 2024.

Prior to the start of trial, the government filed a motion for a pretrial finding of the existence of a conspiracy for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Prior Mot., ECF No. 1699 which the court denied without prejudice, Prior Order (Jan. 11, 2024) ECF No. 1798. The court incorporates by reference here the procedural history reviewed in its prior order regarding the parties' disputes concerning the questions related to the court's finding of a conspiracy. In short, the court previously decided it would permit the government to introduce the disputed statements provisionally at trial, reserving any finding until later in trial once a record was established. Id. at 2. Although the government had identified a significant amount of information before trial, the court found the government's motion was insufficient in two ways. First, the court found context matters, and “without knowing the speakers, the listeners, their purposes, what was said, as well as other necessary context,” the court could not make a final decision regarding whether a statement is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Id. at 3-4. Second, the court found the government's proposed conspiracy lacked clear limits-i.e., it appeared to include everyone connected to the Aryan Brotherhood in California, including every defendant and many others, the period it spanned was unclear, and the government's proposed findings were too generic and broad. Id. at 4-5.

The government has rested its case-in-chief. See Mins. Jury Trial (Mar. 28, 2024), ECF No. 2083; Mins. Jury Trial (Apr. 1, 2024), ECF No. 2122; Mins. Jury Trial (Apr. 2, 2024), ECF No. 2128. The government renews its motion, asking that the court make two express findings before the case goes to the jury: 1) “that the California Aryan Brotherhood was a conspiracy for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and that this Aryan Brotherhood conspiracy existed from at least 2003 to 2021,” Mot. at 2, ECF No. 2072, and 2) that the 48 individuals the government identifies were members of the conspiracy, id. at 3-5. Defendant Yandell opposes the motion, arguing the government's motion suffers from the same problems as its prior motion. See generally Opp'n, ECF No. 2129. Defendant Troxell joins in defendant Yandell's arguments in opposition to the government's motion. Troxell Joinder, ECF No. 2130.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is not hearsay if it is “offered against an opposing party” and “was made by the party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). To succeed in admitting a statement under this rule, the government has the burden of establishing the following factors by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) there was a conspiracy involving the person who made the statement and the defendant or defendants against whom the statement will be admitted, (2) the statement was made during that conspiracy, and (3) the statement was made “in furtherance” of that conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). The court finds the government has now satisfied these three elements, and cured the insufficiency of its prior motion as explained below.

First, in its case in chief, the government provided the necessary context for properly understanding its proffered statements. In determining whether a conspiracy existed under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the court asks “whether there was proof of a sufficient concert of action to show the individuals to have been engaged in a joint venture[.]” United States v. Fries, 781 F.3d 1137, 1151 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the government has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the California Aryan Brotherhood was a conspiracy from at least 2003 to 2020.^[1] The government corroborated the existence of this conspiracy through various sources, including: wiretapped communications capturing discussions between defendants and others;^[2] testimony from law enforcement officers; testimony from CDCR correctional officers; and witness testimony from former and current members and associates of the Aryan Brotherhood including Donald Mazza, Travis Burhop, Kristin Demar and Nickolas Perez.

Second the government's proposed conspiracy no longer lacks clear, supported temporal limits. The government requests the court expressly find the conspiracy existed from at least 2003, when Mr. Mazza testified Mr. Troxell “was already on the commission of the Aryan Brotherhood,” to December 2020, which is the month government witness and admitted co-conspirator Samuel Keeton testified to leaving the “Eight West” pod in Sacramento County Jail, where defendants and other co-defendants were housed pending trial. See Mot. at 2 & n.2. Moreover, the conspiracy...