United States v. Anderson (Grimes)
689 F. App'x 53
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Willie Grimes and Kevin Lamont Anderson were convicted by a jury of drug‑conspiracy offenses; Anderson received life imprisonment and a $1,000,000 forfeiture verdict; Grimes received 168 months (later reduced to 135 months).
- Grimes convicted for conspiracy involving cocaine base and cocaine; Anderson convicted for larger‑quantity cocaine conspiracy, operating premises for drug distribution, and money‑laundering conspiracy.
- Post‑verdict, a juror alleged other jurors consulted the internet during trial/deliberations; defendants moved for new trials alleging juror misconduct and perjury by cooperating witnesses.
- Grimes challenged sufficiency of evidence and the inclusion of a 2001 misdemeanor in his criminal‑history calculation as "relevant conduct."
- Anderson challenged denial of Rule 33 motions alleging perjury, the sufficiency of the evidence/due‑process, application of the Guidelines (including the §2D1.1 "murder cross‑reference" and effect of a retroactive Guidelines amendment), sentencing procedure, and the jury forfeiture special verdict form and scope.
- The district court denied relief on these grounds; the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and clear error where applicable and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct warranted a new trial | Gov’t: district court properly evaluated credibility and denied new trial | Grimes & Anderson: juror statements showed extraneous internet research and influenced verdict | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; allegations lacked credibility or did not show prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Gov’t: testimony and evidence support convictions | Grimes & Anderson: testimony unreliable/perjured; insufficient to convict | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could convict |
| Sentencing: Relevant conduct/criminal‑history (Grimes) | Gov’t: 2001 misdemeanor not relevant to current conspiracy | Grimes: 2001 marijuana conviction was relevant conduct for sentencing | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err in excluding it as relevant conduct |
| Sentencing: Murder cross‑reference & Guidelines (Anderson) | Gov’t: cross‑reference properly applied; quantity findings support base level | Anderson: court misapplied §1B1.3 paragraph; retroactive §2D1.1 amendment requires remand | Affirmed — court erred in citing wrong paragraph but error was harmless because offense level remains treated as 43; quantity findings support same result |
| Rule 33/perjury claims | Gov’t: district court weighed credibility and found no perjury warranting new trial | Anderson: cooperating witnesses committed perjury and gov’t knew or should have known | Affirmed — district court’s credibility determinations not clearly erroneous; defendant failed to show probable acquittal absent perjury |
| Forfeiture special verdict and attachment of assets | Gov’t: verdict form and post‑sentence money judgment procedures were proper | Anderson: verdict form failed to ask nexus per Rule 32.2; jury should not decide quantum; improper attachment of mother's assets | Affirmed — any omissions were not plain error affecting substantial rights; money judgment may be enforced in personam against beneficially owned assets |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion review of Rule 33 denials)
- United States v. Abrams, 137 F.3d 704 (2d Cir.) (review of juror misconduct handling)
- United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453 (2d Cir.) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. LaBarbara, 129 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (review of "relevant conduct" determinations under §1B1.3)
- United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409 (2d Cir.) (Rule 33 and weighing credibility for new trials)
- United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597 (2d Cir.) (harmless‑error analysis for Guidelines miscalculation)
- United States v. Wernick, 691 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (limits on §1B1.3(a)(1) relevant‑conduct scope)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (plain‑error review for unpreserved objections)
- United States v. Awad, 598 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (criminal forfeiture money judgment is in personam)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S.) (plain‑error and substantial‑rights standards)