United States v. Donald R. LaFond, Jr.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6450
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Widdison and LaFond, federal inmates and members of white supremacist gangs, assaulted fellow inmate Kenneth Mills in a prison recreation cage; Mills died from his injuries and both were indicted for second-degree murder.
- Government presented evidence that gang ideology and opposition to Mills having a black cellmate provided motive and intent for the attack.
- Defendants sought to exclude gang-membership evidence; the district court admitted it for the limited purpose of proving intent and motive.
- During voir dire the court empaneled an anonymous jury (jurors identified by number) after prospective jurors expressed fear; counsel retained juror name/number lists.
- Widdison claimed self-defense at trial and requested jury instructions on no duty to retreat and on threats/menaces; the court rejected both as unsupported by the evidence.
- At sentencing before the judge (no jury), the court ordered Widdison shackled; the court rejected his objection and sentenced him to 380 months (LaFond received life).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of gang-membership evidence (Rule 404/403) | Gov: evidence relevant to prove intent and motive; probative value outweighs prejudice | Widdison: 404 violation; LaFond: 403 undue prejudice | Admission affirmed; evidence admissible to prove motive/intent and limiting instruction minimized prejudice |
| Anonymous jury empanelment | Gov/court: needed to protect jurors given gang affiliations and potential risk | Widdison: no showing of need; anonymity undermines presumption of innocence | Affirmed; court properly considered protection factors and gave a plausible, nonprejudicial reason |
| Requested self-defense jury instructions (no duty to retreat; threats/menaces) | Widdison: evidence supported instruction that retreat not required and threats justified belief of imminent danger | Gov: evidence did not support those specific instructions; testimony insufficient | Denied; no sufficient evidence to warrant either instruction |
| Shackling at sentencing (visible restraints before judge) | Widdison: shackling is prejudicial and unnecessary, impaired ability to participate | Gov/court: safety concerns and no jury present; no risk to presumption of innocence | Affirmed; constitutional rule against visible shackling pertains to jury trials and does not bar restraints at bench sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary and shackling rulings)
- United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir.) (standards for anonymous juries and required precautions)
- United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) three-part test)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (government’s burden to prove intent for murder)
- United States v. Bradberry, 466 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (gang ideology as motive evidence)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (prejudice from gang membership evidence)
- United States v. Carrodeguas, 747 F.2d 1390 (11th Cir.) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
- United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir.) (factors for empaneling an anonymous jury)
- United States v. Ruiz, 59 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir.) (defendant entitled to instruction only if evidence supports it)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (prohibition on visible shackling at jury trial absent specific justification)
- United States v. Zuber, 118 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.) (rule against visible shackling does not apply to non-jury sentencing hearings)