United States v. Byron Jones
873 F.3d 482
| 5th Cir. | 2017

Background

  • ROD operated in New Orleans' Eighth Ward as an organized criminal group; government alleged it conspired to distribute crack cocaine, possess firearms, and commit violent crimes for enterprise benefit.
  • Defendants Byron Jones, Deloyd Jones, and Sidney Patterson were charged with RICO, VICAR, gun- and drug-conspiracy offenses, along with related violent-crime counts, based on six incidents (2010–2011).
  • Jury verdicts: all three defendants convicted on RICO, drug-trafficking conspiracy, and gun-conspiracy counts; Byron convicted on some counts related to the Arnold murder and Augustine shooting; Patterson and Deloyd acquitted on others; several counts resulted in convictions for murder, assault, and firearms in aid of racketeering.
  • Sentencing: district court sentenced all three to life imprisonment plus consecutive terms of 120 months and 300 months for firearms offenses.
  • This court reviews sufficiency de novo after trial motions, and defers to the verdict while evaluating whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable supports each element.
  • The court directs a partial reversal and remand for resentencing on Counts 9, 10, 13, and 14.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the government proved a RICO enterprise and pattern of racketeering ROD lacked ongoing organization and shared purpose ROD did not constitute an enterprise or reflect a pattern Yes; ROD proved as an association-in-fact enterprise with a pattern of racketeering
Whether the drug-trafficking conspiracy and related conspiracies were proven Evidence showed conspiratorial agreement and participation Evidence insufficient to show joint conspiracy beyond individual acts Yes; sufficient evidence of concerted drug distribution and related conspiracies
Whether firearms-conspiracy and VICAR-related counts were adequately tied to ROD Guns were used to defend/expand ROD’s drug enterprise Some gun use did not relate to ROD or conspiracies Yes for Counts 5–8; but later Counts 9–10 and 13–14 reversed for insufficient enterprise-linking evidence
Admissibility and identification of recorded jail-house calls Voice identifications were properly supported by witnesses Speaker identification and hearsay concerns unresolved Admissible; witnesses had sufficient familiarity and foundation; hearsay objections rejected
Failure to give accessory-after-the-fact instruction and impact on conviction Required instruction to avoid confusion with principal liability Trial defense otherwise adequately conveyed distinctions No reversible error; instruction omission not plain error given trial context and arguments
Appropriate sentencing guideline calculations for 924(j) counts First-degree murder guideline applicable Louisiana second-degree murder should govern Plain error review; district court properly used first-degree murder guideline

Key Cases Cited

  • Posada-Rios v. United States, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998) (elements of RICO conspiracy and enterprise proof)
  • Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (requirement of proving RICO enterprise and pattern)
  • Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association-in-fact enterprise requires structure and longevity)
  • Turkette v. United States, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (definition of enterprise and group-of-persons concept)
  • United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1978) (expands notion of continuing enterprise evidence)
  • United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 2007) (conspiracy proof may be circumstantial)
  • United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1994) (conspiracy agreement may be tacit)
  • United States v. Beechum, 582 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rule 404(b) admissibility balancing test (en banc))
  • United States v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2012) (voice-identification sufficient with some familiarity)
  • United States v. Cuesta, 597 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1979) (foundational requirements for voice identification)
  • United States v. Norman, 415 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2005) (voice identification by law enforcement context)
  • Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (plain-error standard and non-final procedural issues)
  • United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 2014) (non-final evidentiary issues and plain-error review)
  • United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189 (5th Cir. 1995) (first-degree murder analogue under federal guidelines)
  • Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review and sentencing)
  • United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1990) (evidentiary abuse of discretion and balancing)
Read the full case