|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The brief in support of the motion gives greater detail.
Several jurors reported they believe they were followed in cars when leaving the court. A male juror thought he was followed by a man seen n the court that was driving a larg black SUV. On the 16th, he also saw two women that were trying to identify the cars and license plate numbers of the jurors.
A female juror said she was followed by a white car. She was nearly 30 miles from court before she was able to shake the tail by abruptly exiting the freeway. She had employed several unsuccessful tactics such as changing lanes, speeding up and slowing down before her quick exit. This same white car was allegedly seen near the courthouse by other jurors.
A purple colored car allegedly followed another juror for a considerable distance and was unable to shake the tail. He finally pulled into a gas station and the car moved on.
All of the jurors are aware of the alleged tails.
On the 16th, a young woman seen in the court room was seen by the jurors in the jury room looking at their cars in the parking lot and trying to obtain their license plate numbers.
On the same day, two young women were observed at a street corner next to the courthouse who were pointing at their cars.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:36 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Minock wrote that all but one juror was aware of these incidents. He noted that while jurors know their identities are anonymous, they also fear these are attempts to identify them and they fear possible retaliation.
Minock cites numerous cases which he believes supports his motion. He states that some jurors were fearful in voir dire, in front of the other jurors, because of the violent nature of the case. Minock states their fear is understandable. He cites United States v Koubriti,252F. Supp.2d 418, 420 (ED Michigan 2003) which describes procedures for jurors to be transported to the courthouse by deputy marshals to protect jurors from being identified.
Minock discussed how several jurors have described implementing defensive driving routines to avoid surveillance. While some jurors downplayed their fears, Minock believes their altered routines "speaks volumes of the intimidation the jurors feel".
"There is absolutely no evidence that the improper conduct was done at the behest of defendant, but the prejudice to him will be severe."
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:50 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
On March 11, 2014, the government submitted an" amended notice of intent to introduce evidence of other acts".:
1. The murder of Gary Andre and attempted murder of Joey love in the City of flint on February 5, 2004.
2. The attempted murder of Christopher Jones and Nicole Howell in Flint on April 7, 2004.
3. The murder of Omar Bashir in Flint on August 20, 2004.
4. The murder of Matthew Oldham in Flint on January 30, 2005.
5. The armed robbery of magic Market on November 27, 2006.
6. The murder of Latoya Jones and attempted murder of Benjamin Kinney in Flint on May 9,2007.
7. The murder of Dion Hairston in Flint on May 21, 2007.
8. The murder of Dairea Bradley in Flint on August 18, 2007.
9. Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine on October 10,2008.
10. Solicitation to murder Xavier Turner on June 4-5, 2012. (FBI file)
11. Threats made to Derrick Davis in Midland County jail. (FBI file0
12. Fight between members of the Howard Boys and members of T-Hood (Atherton Terrace gang) in the Midland County Jail on April 22, 2013. (MCSD file)
13. Threats/harassment involving Carvell Walker and Dantonia Haygood on June 29-30, 2009 in Flint. |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:07 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Some of the most incriminating testimony was from Turner. The danger to him was great and the government had relocated him.
The attorneys for the six Defendants raised the theory that the Howard Boys were merely rappers and not gangsters. Turner blew that theory to pieces when he discussed informal meetings, "the way we chill", when a group decided to use the name "hot boys" to represent themselves. The name "Murda Ville" came later. Turner said fromthe very beginning the name represented the gang and not rap. Turner easily rattled off names of those that agreed on the Hot Boys moniker.
It was after January 28, 2011 when the RICO threats began to surface, that they had a meeting in which they discussed telling the feds they were just rappers. He mentioned the Evans brothers, Gills and Cunningham being among those at the meeting. He satted they were a group of drug dealers and not rappers.
CAG meaning the Crocker Avenue Gang and Stewart Hood were all part of the evolution of names representing the area The group also used 858, a number code for HEH representing Howard Estates Hustlers. (The 858 was once painted on the metal control box on the tracks next to Howard estates.) |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:19 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Turner described several murders. Gills was implicated in the 2009 murder of Malachi Wilson in the front of Howard estates. Turner also described how the shooting of Jones was planned and executed in retaliation of the shooting two years prior of Eddie Williams.
Turner witnessed the shooting of Parker off his bicycle when Parker left the store. He said Norwood was the shooter. There has been other testimony about this murder.
From the indictment: Alexandra Norwood -- Charged with racketeering and murder in support of racketeering. Norwood is accused of fatally shooting Jonathan Parker July 17, 2004, near Crocker Avenue and Lippincott Boulevard.
Turner sat tall and spoke with a firm voice as he described other shootings and drug dealings in the hood. Like others, he began selling drugs at age 15. Under cross examination he repeated several times that he was required to testify truthfully as part of is proffer.. At time he described a group "out-of-control with beefs, retributions and other reckless behaviors.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:18 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Turner testified on two instances of violence where Gills used the expression "Lay the law down" prior to the initiation of the violence. This means the aren't playing, said Turner.
"Banging hard" was used in the area to indicate the drug business was strong. The competition in some areas known for sales was sometimes fierce. The first one to the car made the sale, said Turner.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:31 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Attorney asks for mistrial in Howard Boys gang trial after jurors allegedly intimidated
Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com By Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on June 20, 2014 at 6:00 PM, updated June 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM
.
FLINT, MI -- The attorney for a Flint man charged with murder in connection to a racketeering conspiracy case against a suspected violent street gang is asking for a mistrial after he claims jurors hearing the trial have been intimidated.
Ann Arbor-based attorney John Minock, who represents Johnathan L. Oldham, filed a motion Tuesday, June 17, asking Flint U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith to declare a mistrial after Minock argued jurors have been followed home by people possibly associated with the gang.
Oldham is charged with racketeering, murder in support of racketeering and attempted murder in support of racketeering after authorities say he killed Malachi Wilson June 15, 2009, at Howard Estates housing complex.
He is also accused of attempting to kill a second person Feb. 13, 2010, at the Boogie Down Motorcycle Club during a dispute with a member of the Drifters Motorcycle Club.
Oldham is one of six men currently on trial in Flint U.S. District Court for their association with the alleged Howard Boys gang. Prosecutors claim the group used threats and violence to protect their business of selling drugs and illegal weapons on the city's south side.
Minock argues in his motion that several jurors believe that they have been followed when leaving court by people they believe are somehow associated with the suspects on trial.
There are also claims that individuals who were previously observed in the courtroom were outside the courthouse attempting to obtain license plate numbers from the jurors' vehicles. Minock argues that those license plate numbers could be used to identify the jurors' home addresses.
Minock could not be reached for comment on the motion. The motion claims that there is no proof that those accused of intimidating the witnesses are associated with any particular suspect on trial or that any of the suspects ordered the activity.
"Virtually the whole panel has been intimidated by third parties associated by the jurors loosely with the defendants, though not specific to any particular defendant," Minock argues. "There is no way the jurors can realistically be expected to put aside those fears."
Those fears, Minock claims, will prejudice the jury and make it impossible for his client to receive a fair trial.
The identity of jurors is supposed to remain confidential, but a female juror claims that she was followed by a white car that she believed was driven by a person associated with the men on trial. Minock's motion claims the juror changed lanes and speeds to determine if she was being followed and was eventually able to shake the tail by abruptly exiting the freeway.
Another juror claims he was followed by a purple car that he was able to lose by pulling into a gas station.
"Several jurors have taken to defensive driving to avoid surveillance and have altered their travel routes home," Minock's motion reads.
Minock claims that the incidents are an attempt to identify the jurors and could expose them to potential retaliation. He adds that this is one of the "most serious breaches of juror anonymity" he has ever experienced in this district.
"The jurors now are all aware and believe that third parties related to the defendants have now tried to pierce their anonymity and are afraid," Minock writes.
Officials with the U.S. Marshals Service, which is tasked with protecting federal jurors, declined to comment on the allegations.
Federal prosecutors have yet to respond to Minock's motion. The government's response is due Monday, June 23. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:24 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Security in the court is being increased. They already have a large amount of security within the courtroom. I have counted as many as 11 federal agents and federal security personnel in the courtroom. There is an increased presence in the entry as well. I have also observed security personnel scanning the streets outside the court entrance.
Now all court visitors are having their drivers license information entered into a record. Friday a delivery courier was challenged for entering the Clerks office with her portfolio bag. The seating for observers has been moved back one row and seating is limited on the side of the court with the jurors.
The court may have to re-evaluate juror security for this case and future cases. Security within the court is tight, but out in the parking area it obviously needs to be improved. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:44 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Count 3 of the indictment dealt with the murder of Marion Hardy to which Jonathan and Jatimothy Walker each pled nolo contender to Volntary manslaughter on March 10,209.
Both brothers filed motions to dismiss Count 3 based on Double jeopardy grounds and this was previously denied by the Court. The trial continues with Count 3.
On June 2, 2014 all parties, including the government, agreed to disallow all of the documents from the previous trial and the nolo contender plea.
Those documents include:
a) Charging documents, including Complaint and Information;
b) Pleas transcripts and recordings;
c) Sentencing transcripts and recordings;
d) Judgment of Sentence;
e) Commitment to Jail;
f) Presentence Reports;
g) Register of Actions. |
|
|
|
Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:03 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
John Minock, the attorney for Johnathan Oldham, in May filed a Second Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Sever From Co-Defendant Jonathan Walker (#563) . Minock references what he calls "a laundry list of alleged drug and murder offenses" attributed to individuals identified by the Government as part of the "criminal organization". This motion references Count 39 in which deals specifically with the shooting and wounding of Efrem Anderson.
Minock states the government will introduce a testimonial statement by Jonathan Walker, in which Walker alleges Oldham shot Anderson. Minock finds it ironic that walker allegedly also told a government cooperating witness, Roderick Dudley, That he, Walker shot Anderson. His argument is the indictment accuses Oldham of shooting Anderson and links the statements of walker to Oldham. Minock objects to the direct naming of a co-defendant. |
|
|
|
Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:32 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The government filed an opposition to the motion.
United States v Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401, 407 (6th Circuit 2007) was used in their discussion of what was acceptable under Bruton. "In Vasilakos, the court analyzed Richardson and Gray and followed the Fourth, Eight and tenth Circuits, holding that the admission of a declarant-codefendant's redacted confession which "replaced defendant's name with 'another person' or 'another individual' avoided any Sixth Amendment or Bruton problem."
The government stated they believe Walker's statements were not powerfully incriminating and were not directly referring to any co-defendant. "Walker simply places himself at the scene of two shootings."
Appendix A (redacted statements)
1) Jonathan Walker stated he was present at Howard Estates when Marion Hardy was shot. Jonathan explained he was sitting on a stoop near the Lapeer Road parking lot when he observed the victim in an argument. Jonathan was unsure what the beef was about. Jonathan denied being involved in the shooting.
2) During the argument, he observed Hardy get shot with a 9 mm handgun.
3) Walker advised he was approximately five yards away when he observed an unknown male black subject get shot and fall to the ground. Jonathan denied being involved in the shooting.
4) A couple days later he ran into a guy at a party store n 12th Street. The guy advised him to get rid of his royal blue Detroit Tigers baseball cap because they caught him on camera the night of the shooting.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:11 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
To me, Turner's testimony was devastating to the defendants. He never hesitated and he threw out the names of those involved in different criminal activities so fast that I was amazed the court reporter could record them without stopping and asking him to repeat them.
I am acutely aware that others don't always view situations as I do. I felt this testimony was extremely powerful towards proving the governments case. He linked so many individuals together in the commission of the crimes and showed the cohesion of the group. The defense attorneys were unable to shake him.
Was there a ploy to discredit him? One defense attorney stood there and angrily denounced Turner of getting away with the murder of an individual on Dort and Lapeer. Turner seemed genuinely confused and asked "Who?" Then all of the attorneys were in front of the judge and a subdued defense attorney asked about some reduced charges. I went home and looked up the media reports of the murder, only to see three other individuals being tried for this murder. There was no other explanation, so I imagine the jury was as perplexed as I was. Was this a guise to confuse the jury?
Turner also exposed the absurd logic of trying to prove the group was just rappers. Although some moved away from Howard Estates and some lived in other parts of town, they still hung together and committed crimes together.
The Special Agent in charge of the task force discussed the relocation of the witness and the cost. Turner did not cave in as did Marcus Evans. Documents indicate Evans recanted in response to threats against his sister and family members. Instead Turner seemed defiant against his former cohorts who allegedly tried to silence him.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:20 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Bruton v . U.S | Casebriefs - Law Cases & Case Briefs for ...
www.casebriefs.com › … › Confrontation and Compulsory Process
View this case and other resources at: Citation. 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968) Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner was tried
View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law
Citation. 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968)
Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner was tried with Mr. Evans (co-defendant) for armed postal robbery; both were convicted by a jury. At trial, the court allowed testimony of a witness, who indicated that co-defendant confessed to the crime and to having the help of Petitioner in committing the crime, to be admitted against co-defendant, but instructed the jury not to consider it in determining Petitioner’s guilt. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Petitioner’s conviction, and Petitioner challenges, on certiorari, his conviction here.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a co-defendant’s confession implicates a criminal defendant, and the co-defendant does not testify at trial, the admission of the confession violates the criminal defendant’s rights under the 6th amendment Confrontation Clause, even when jury instructions are given that instruct the jury to disregard the co-defendant’s confession in deciding the criminal defendant’s guilt.
Facts. After a postal robbery occurred and Petitioner and co-defendant were put on trial, a postal inspector (Witness) was called to testify; Witness stated that during an interrogation of co-defendant, co-defendant orally confessed to the robbery and stated that Petitioner had joined him in committing it.
Jury instructions were given that indicated to the jury that the testimony of Witness was properly considerable to determine co-defendant’s guilt, but that the testimony was not be considered in determining the guilt of Petitioner. The jury convicted both Petitioner and co-defendant, and both appealed.
On appeal, co-defendant’s conviction was set aside, based on the trial court’s allowance of the hearsay testimony concerning co-defendant’s oral confessions to be heard by the jury. The appeals court, however, affirmed the conviction of Petitioner, because of the jury instructions that were given by the trial judge.
Issue. Was it reversible error for the trial court to allow co-defendant’s confession into evidence at the joint trial of Petitioner and co-defendant and instruct the jury to not consider the evidence in determining Petitioner’s guilt
Held. Reversed and remanded. Yes; Petitioner’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of the evidence, despite the judge’s instructions, because there was a substantial risk that the jury looked to the evidence in determining Petitioner’s guild in contradiction of the instructions.
Discussion. The Court reasoned that even though the jury was instructed by the trial judge to not consider the alleged confession of co-defendant in determining Petitioner’s guilt, the jury would likely nonetheless at least bear it in mind in deciding Petitioner’s fate. The Court quotes Judge Learned Hand, who stated that such a limiting instruction, “is a ‘recommendation to the jury of a mental gymnastic which is beyond, not only their powers, but anybody’s else . . . .’” The Court acknowledged that it was not possible to unequivocally know whether the jury considered the statement in deciding the guilt of Petitioner, but that the risk was so substantial that the jury did, that Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by allowing the jury to physically hear the statements and to only protect Petitioner through an impossible to follow limiting instruction. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Not being a lawyer, I had to look this reference up because this citation is used so much in the arguments and briefs. It also explains why the Judge is so very careful in his instructions to the jury regarding the admission of testimony of one defendant against another. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:33 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
How to Make a RICO Case Against Gangs - Gangs - POLICE Magazine
www.policemag.com/blog/gangs/story/2008/11/how-to-make-a... Cached
How to Make a RICO Case Against Gangs It isn’t easy using this “nuclear option” against gangsters, but nothing you can legally do will hit them harder.
FBI — RICO Indictment Expands Case Against Clique of 18th ...
www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2009/la061609.htm Cached
RICO Indictment Expands Case Against Clique of 18th Street Gang Involved in Murder of 3-Week-Old Child, a Cold Case Murder Committed in 2001, and Other Crimes
Azusa gang charged with hate crime in federal RICO case ...
www.streetgangs.com/features/060811_azusa_gang_rico Cached
Hate Crime Laws Bring Down Azusa Gang Leader Federal hate crime charges filed against four reputed Latino gang members from Highland Park Shotgun-wielding gang member ... |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:37 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
