76 F. Supp. 3d 401
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Laurent, Ashburn, and Merritt are charged in a racketeering indictment alleging murders, attempted murders, Hobbs Act robberies, and related acts (2007–2011); Laurent specifically is charged in multiple RAs and substantive counts.
- The Government obtained historical cell‑site records for two phones (the "4017" via a Connecticut §54‑47aa order and the "6638" via a §2703(d) SCA order) and seeks to use them at trial.
- Merritt gave out‑of‑court statements implicating a co‑participant in the murder of Dasta James; Government proposes redacting names and using neutral pronouns at trial.
- Laurent was interviewed at Rikers Island about the Lux Bond & Green robbery after receiving Miranda warnings but refused to sign a waiver; he answered questions for ~48 minutes.
- Law enforcement later obtained state court warrants to collect Laurent’s DNA by buccal swab; Laurent refused collection on two occasions and displayed disruptive conduct during one attempt.
- Laurent moved: to suppress cell‑site and texts; to exclude Merritt’s statements (or sever); to suppress statements to police at Rikers; to exclude/limit evidence of his DNA‑warrant refusal and to compel production of the DNA warrants/applications; to remove an alias; and for additional Rule 16/Brady discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Laurent's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of historical cell‑site data | Obtaining long‑term cell‑site records required a probable‑cause warrant; records obtained under §2703/§54‑47aa violated Fourth Amendment | Records were obtained with judicial authorization under SCA and Conn. statute; even if search, officers reasonably relied on statutes and orders (good‑faith exception) | Denied: court applies Leon/Krull/Davis good‑faith exception and admits the records |
| Exclusion of Merritt’s statements (Confrontation/Bruton) | Merritt’s statements inculpate Laurent; redactions cannot prevent prejudice; if not excluded, must sever | Will redact names using neutral pronouns, call witnesses to testify without naming Laurent, and request limiting instructions | Denied: proposed neutral redactions (with minor modifications) and limiting instructions satisfy Bruton/Crawford principles; statements admissible against Merritt only |
| Severance of Laurent and Merritt | Joint trial prejudices Laurent because Merritt’s statements fully inculpate Laurent and defenses are antagonistic | Joint trial appropriate for conspiracy charges; redaction and limiting instruction cure prejudice; defenses not irreconcilable | Denied: defendants fail to show substantial prejudice or irreconcilable defenses; Rule 14 relief unwarranted |
| Suppress statements made by Laurent at Rikers (Miranda) | Interview was custodial; Laurent refused to sign Miranda waiver so statements inadmissible | Not custodial for Miranda purposes; even if custodial, Laurent did not unambiguously invoke silence and he implicitly waived by speaking after warnings | Denied: court finds interview not custodial (Howes); alternatively, no unambiguous invocation and waiver inferred from conduct |
| Admissibility of evidence of Laurent’s refusal to provide DNA | Refusal and disruptive conduct irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; refusal may have benign explanations (DNA already on file) | Refusal to submit to lawful, painless buccal swab is admissible as consciousness of guilt (Neville/Terry); but some statements/conduct may be irrelevant | Granted in part/Denied in part: fact of refusals admissible as consciousness‑of‑guilt; specific statements/rowdy conduct (October snapping swab; November courtroom outburst) excluded unless Laurent puts his state of mind at issue or challenges warrant validity |
| Compel production of DNA warrants/applications | Defense needs warrants/applications to test validity and to oppose admission of refusal evidence | Government says warrants not material because it did not obtain DNA and may not use DNA evidence | Granted in part: Government ordered to produce the October and November 2011 DNA warrants; ordered to show cause by date why underlying applications should not be produced |
| Exclude alias (“Gunner”) from indictment/trial | Alias prejudicial and unnecessary | Government does not oppose | Denied as moot — Government removed alias in later superseding indictment |
| Rule 16 / Brady discovery generally | Defense seeks broad production of materials including DNA applications and other items | Government has produced many disclosures and will produce required material; disputes remain | Granted in part and stayed in part — court orders limited disclosure re: DNA warrants and stays remainder pending defense letter about outstanding items |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking and Fourth Amendment framework; majority relied on trespass, concurrences discussed long‑term tracking privacy concerns)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (officers may rely on statute later found unconstitutional; supports good‑faith exception)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (extends good‑faith analysis to reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (limits exclusionary rule where police error is negligent, not deliberate)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial‑interrogation warnings requirement)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (Miranda custody analysis for incarcerated persons; imprisonment alone not categorical custody)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (invocation of Miranda rights must be unambiguous; waiver can be inferred)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non‑testifying codefendant’s confession naming defendant inadmissible; redaction principles)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redacted confessions that eliminate explicit identification may be admitted with limiting instruction)
- Jass v. United States, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (Bruton/gray/redaction analysis; neutral pronoun substitutions guidance)
- Tutino v. United States, 883 F.2d 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (approach to redaction; Bruton framework)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (refusal to submit to chemical test admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299 (2d Cir. 1983) (refusal to provide palm prints admissible as consciousness of guilt, with contemporaneous state‑of‑mind statements admissible too)