Gary C. Dickens & Antwarn D. Fenner v. United States
163 A.3d 804
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Victim Stanley Daniels was shot dead in a Range Rover on Aug. 8, 2008; DNA tied blood in the vehicle to a prior victim, April Dickens. Defendants Antwarn Fenner and Gary Dickens were tried for first-degree murder while armed and conspiracy; Eddie Pitts pleaded guilty earlier to conspiracy and testified for the prosecution.
- Witnesses placed Fenner near the scene in light clothing; other witnesses described a shooter whose appearance arguably fit Dickens. Cell-phone records, calls, and witness testimony placed Dickens in the area and showed he had voiced intent to kill Daniels.
- Testimony indicated coordination among Dickens, Fenner, and Pitts: arrangements to transport Fenner to the scene, plans for post-shooting pickup, Fenner admitting to shooting to Pitts (and confessing to a cousin), and concealment of a gun after the shooting.
- The trial court gave a general aiding-and-abetting instruction applicable to both defendants; the jury convicted both of conspiracy and first-degree murder while armed, acquitting Fenner of a separate firearm-possession charge.
- Post-trial, Dickens sought a new trial under Brady and Rule 33 based on a presentence report (PSR) statement by Pitts prepared by CSOSA that was not disclosed until after trial; Dickens also sought remand for further inquiry about a pretrial complaint about his counsel. Fenner challenged a portion of his counsel’s struck closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction (Fenner) | Fenner: instruction improper because evidence showed he was the principal (shooter), not an aider/abettor; jury’s PFCV acquittal shows they didn’t think he had the gun. | Government: instruction proper because evidence supported alternative theory (coordination, assistance, flight, concealment); Griffin allows harmless alternative-theory instructions. | Court: Affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported an aiding-and-abetting theory; Griffin/Inyamah permit upholding conviction on a supported theory even if another theory is weak. |
| Striking part of closing argument (Fenner) | Fenner: strike prevented raising lack-of-evidence/corroboration argument essential to defense. | Government: strike limited and court otherwise permitted extensive argument attacking government’s proof. | Court: No reversible error. Counsel made allowable missing-evidence/impeachment points; removal not prejudicial. |
| Brady / Rule 33 re: Pitts’ PSR statement (Dickens) | Dickens: PSR contained impeachment/favorable statement suppressed until after trial; government should be charged with knowledge/possession or should have obtained it from CSOSA; materiality warrants new trial. | Government: PSR was prepared by CSOSA for sentencing and not in prosecution’s possession; prosecutor did not know content before trial; disclosure occurred promptly after PSR completion; statements would have been cumulative/impeaching. | Court: No Brady or Rule 33 relief. Government did not possess the PSR pre-trial; Dickens was not diligent in seeking the PSR when invited to do so; therefore no suppression or entitlement to new trial shown. |
| Inquiry into defendant’s pretrial complaint about counsel (Dickens) | Dickens: trial court failed to conduct sufficient inquiry into his allegation that counsel should be replaced (counsel said "there may be other matters"). | Government: trial judge questioned counsel and addressed the only articulated complaint (disagreement over a continuance); no further probe required absent specific allegations. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Limited complaint was investigated; vague remark about other matters did not require extended inquiry or replacement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. United States, 599 A.2d 1094 (D.C. 1991) (discusses limits on applying aiding-and-abetting where defendant may be sole principal)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (general-verdict rule: conviction may stand if alternative valid theory supported by evidence)
- Inyamah v. United States, 956 A.2d 58 (D.C. 2008) (applies Griffin to uphold conviction despite weak aiding-and-abetting theory)
- Tann v. United States, 127 A.3d 400 (D.C. 2015) (elements of aiding and abetting: crime by someone, assistance/participation, guilty knowledge)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor’s duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C. 1978) (trial-court duty to inquire into pretrial claims of ineffective assistance)