21-4334
4th Cir.Apr 16, 2024Background
- Seven members of the "36th Street Bang Squad" were convicted on multiple charges, including RICO conspiracy, VICAR murders and attempted murders, firearms offenses, and related crimes, stemming from violent gang activity in Virginia in 2015 and 2017.
- The Government presented extensive evidence at a five-week trial, including forensic testimony linking guns to crime scenes and the testimony of cooperating gang members; the jury convicted the defendants on most counts.
- On appeal, defendants challenged the classification of certain predicate offenses as crimes of violence, the admission of toolmark forensic expert testimony, multiple trial court rulings (including denial of motions for judgment of acquittal and a mistrial), and certain sentencing enhancements.
- The district court’s rulings addressed both federal and state law issues, including application of United States Supreme Court precedent on what constitutes a crime of violence for firearms charges post-Taylor v. United States.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the substantial appellate record and affirmed the district court’s rulings on all issues raised by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VICAR attempted murder/assault | Defendants’ offenses are not crimes of violence post-Taylor v. U.S. | Govt: Virginia law requires violent physical force; supports violence | Attempted murder/assault are crimes of violence under § 924(c). |
| Exclusion of forensic toolmark experts | Toolmark evidence is unreliable and should be categorically excluded | Govt: Ballistics analysis has reliable methodology, subject to cross | District court did not abuse discretion allowing limited testimony. |
| Denial of judgment of acquittal | Insufficient evidence to support convictions on specific counts | Govt evidence & testimony sufficient for all elements | Evidence sufficient; denial of acquittal affirmed. |
| Denial of justifiable self-defense | Defendants entitled to a broad self-defense jury instruction | Govt: Evidence precludes justifiable (no-fault) self-defense | Excusable (not justifiable) self-defense instruction proper. |
| Sentencing enhancement (RICO, murder) | Acquittal on murder precludes sentencing enhancement on conspiracy | Govt: Sentencing can consider conspirator liability by preponderance | Enhancement proper where jury found conspiracy proven. |
| Denial of mistrial (uncharged murder) | Witness improperly referenced uncharged murder; prejudicial | Govt: Reference was brief; jury instructed to disregard, not repeated | No abuse of discretion; curative instruction sufficient. |
| Denial of motion for reappointment | Pro se defendant sought stand-by counsel reappointment pre-trial | Govt: Motion was untimely and disruptive on eve of trial | District court had discretion to deny late motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) (attempt offense is a crime of violence only if completed offense invariably requires use of physical force)
- United States v. Keene, 955 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2020) (VICAR statute targets violence to advance racketeering)
- United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2016) (reviewing crime-of-violence determinations de novo)
- United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (first-degree murder under VA law involves physical force)
- United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (categorical approach to evaluating crimes of violence)
- United States v. Roof, 10 F.4th 314 (4th Cir. 2021) (murder always involves use of physical force)
- United States v. Legins, 34 F.4th 304 (4th Cir. 2022) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not undermine conviction)
- United States v. Barronette, 46 F.4th 177 (4th Cir. 2022) (RICO conspiracy does not require specific predicates to be charged or proven)
- United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 29 motion)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic evidence and reliability subject to challenge)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (district court's discretion on admissibility of expert testimony)