United States v. Ellis
121 F. Supp. 3d 927
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Defendants Purvis Ellis, Deante Kincaid, Damien McDaniel, and Joseph Pennymon are charged in a federal RICO case linked to Sem City in East Oakland.
- Indictment covers racketeering conspiracy from at least 2007 through 2013, with alleged acts including murder, robbery, drugs, sex trafficking, and fraud.
- Police obtained warrants to search Apartments 108, 110, and 212, and to arrest Ellis, based in part on information from a confidential informant (CI).
- January 20, 2013: a shooting at a bus stop near Foothill Blvd./Seminary involved multiple suspects; another shooting on January 21, 2013, involved Officer K. (Victim 2) at 1759 Seminary Ave.
- Searches of Apartments 212 and other locations yielded weapons recovered from Officer K., DNA on items, and a Hertz car linked to the defendants; Ellis was later arrested and an arrest warrant filed.
- Defendants move for various relief, including bills of particulars, discovery, suppression of identifications and evidence, and Rule 17(c) subpoenas; the court issues rulings and reserves on several motions for briefing and additional submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bill of particulars for Count 1 (RICO conspiracy) | Ellis, et al. seek detailed dates and acts. | Need precise joining dates and specific acts. | Guilty on some aspects; court denies broad roll-up, orders limited disclosures of overt acts within 30 days. |
| Discovery of 404(b) evidence and CI identity | Government will introduce 404(b) evidence and CI content. | Defendants entitled to CI identity/content for challenges. | Reopens briefing; 404(b) evidence to be produced; CI identity/content disclosures to be briefed with factors considered. |
| Suppressions—eyewitness identifications | Identifications reliable; need not suppress. | Possible suggestiveness; challenge to lineups. | Pennymon identification denied; Ellis’s suppression motion pending supplemental transcripts and briefing. |
| Search of curtilage and Fourth Amendment challenge | Evidence seized illegally from residential curtilage. | Officer trespassed into driveway/parking lot. | Denied; no Fourth Amendment violation; independent source doctrine applies; seizure upheld. |
| Special topics (Rule 17(c) subpoena and other suppressions | Need evidentiary hearing and challenge to CI; suppressions tied to those issues. | Request for evidentiary hearing should be granted. | Remains under submission pending supplemental briefing and potential hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.1979) (bill of particulars not for full discovery of government's evidence)
- United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.2010) (conspiracy time frame need not be exact if overt acts limit duration)
- United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890 (9th Cir.1985) (bill of particulars not required for all details; limits of discovery)
- United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2004) (indictment alleging elements generally sufficient; discovery may precede specificity)
- United States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673 (9th Cir.1995) (bare bones information permissible if elements are fully set forth)