United States v. Barret
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132546
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Superseding Indictment (S-2) charges eight to twelve defendants with conspiracy to distribute marijuana (2006–2010) and firearm counts related to drug trafficking.
- Alleged plot involved mailing marijuana to Queens mailbox drops, then transporting to stash houses for distribution.
- Law enforcement used pole-camera surveillance, trash inspections, and searches at Barret Residence and Wilson Residence to gather evidence of the conspiracy.
- Intercepted packages totaling ~40 pounds of marijuana; later searches recovered ~100 kilograms at Barret Residence.
- Arraignments occurred in early October 2010; Mitchell was arraigned September 22, 2011; co-defendants faced various discovery and pretrial motions.
- Movants (Anderson, Barret, Forrest, Jones, Manning, Scarlett) seek multiple pretrial reliefs (severance, Rule 16, 404(b), Brady, etc.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder and severance were proper under Rule 8(b) and 14(a). | Movants claim spillover prejudice and multi-conspiracy proof. | Movants argue severe prejudice, antagonistic defenses, or Bruton concerns warrant severance. | Severance denied; joinder proper and prejudice insufficient. |
| Whether the indictment is duplicitous for alleging a single conspiracy. | Government contends single conspiracy; evidence may show multiple conspiracies. | Defense argues multiple conspiracies exist requiring dismissal. | Indictment facially alleges single conspiracy; jury determines actual conspiracy at trial. |
| Whether Barret is entitled to discovery of informants and unindicted co-conspirators. | Barret seeks identities to prepare his defense. | Court should withhold informant identities absent material necessity. | Barret's informant and unindicted-conspirator discovery denied. |
| Whether grand jury minutes should be released for Anderson’s motion. | Anderson seeks grand jury material to challenge indictment. | Secrecy should be pierced only for compelling necessity. | Motion denied; no compelling basis shown. |
| Whether evidence from Subject Telephone 11 was properly seized. | Scarlett challenges probable cause for telephone search. | Probable cause found; motion to suppress denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (Supreme Court, 1993) (preference for joint trials; severance when prejudice substantial)
- Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.1993) (evidence against co-conspirators admissible; no spillover prejudice in conspiracies)
- Spinelli, 352 F.3d 48 (2d Cir.2003) (courts may use curative instructions; mega-trial considerations)
- Berger, 224 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.2000) (single conspiracy may involve multiple groups; no automatic multiple conspiracies)
- Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir.1989) (mega-trial considerations; complexity alone not enough for severance)