993 F.3d 57
2d Cir.2021Background
- Over eight days in August 2014 Tyrone Felder and three childhood associates carjacked two livery cabs; Felder shot both drivers in the head and the group committed or attempted armed robberies afterward.
- Evidence included extensive surveillance video, historical cell-site location information (CSLI) obtained under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), DNA from gloves, forensic analyses, and co-conspirator testimony (Tommy Smalls pleaded guilty and testified).
- Felder stood trial in S.D.N.Y., was convicted of nine counts: two counts of carjacking resulting in death (18 U.S.C. § 2119(3)), Hobbs Act robberies and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and multiple § 924(c) firearms offenses; sentenced to life plus 34 years.
- On appeal Felder challenged: (1) jury instructions on § 2119 mens rea and causation; (2) admission of a firearms expert’s opinion that a dark object in surveillance video was a gun; (3) admission of CSLI obtained pre-Carpenter under the good-faith exception; (4) admission of photographs and testimony about his relationship with co-conspirators; and (5) whether Hobbs Act robbery and carjacking are crimes of violence for § 924(c).
- The Second Circuit affirmed on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Felder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction — mens rea for § 2119 | Charge permissibly allowed conditional or unconditional intent; Holloway controls | Instruction misstated law; intent must be for purpose of stealing the car | Affirmed: § 2119 mens rea may be conditional or unconditional when present at the moment of the taking; Holloway governs. |
| Jury instruction — causation for § 2119(3) ("death results") | "Results from" requires but-for causation only; no proximate-foreseeability instruction necessary | Court should have instructed on proximate causation/foreseeability | Affirmed: but-for causation suffices; foreseeability instruction not required and omission harmless on facts. |
| Firearms expert ID from surveillance video | Expert testimony admissible under Rule 702; expert did not usurp jury; late-notice cure = continuance | Testimony should be excluded (late notice, lay vs. expert, usurpation) | Affirmed: court acted within discretion; Fox qualified, testimony reliable and non-usurping; six-day continuance cured notice issue. |
| CSLI obtained under § 2703(d) (pre-Carpenter) | Records admissible under good-faith exception because officers reasonably relied on SCA and binding precedent | Carpenter makes SCA insufficient; records should be suppressed | Affirmed: good-faith exception applies; reliance on SCA and precedent was reasonable pre-Carpenter. |
| Admission of photos/testimony re relationship with co-conspirators | Photographs and lay testimony were probative of the conspiracy and leadership/knowledge | Evidence was prejudicial character/propensity evidence | Affirmed: admissible to show relationship, mutual trust, and knowledge; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery and carjacking are "crimes of violence" under § 924(c) | Predicates qualify as crimes of violence | Felder argued they do not categorically qualify (focus on "intimidation" rubric) | Affirmed: Hobbs Act robbery (Hill) and § 2119 carjacking are categorical crimes of violence; "intimidation" requires knowing conduct that threatens force. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) (§ 2119 covers conditional and unconditional intent; mens rea measured at moment of taking)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) ("results from" requires but-for causation analysis)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search; warrant generally required)
- United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2018) (Second Circuit recognized good-faith exception for SCA-obtained CSLI pre-Carpenter)
- United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c))
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (presumption of officer good-faith reliance on statute not clearly unconstitutional)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (trespass/GPS tracking decision; discussed as distinct from SCA context)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrant required to search cellphones seized at arrest; distinguished from SCA orders)
- United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2019) (intimidation requires knowing conduct creating impression resistance will be met by force; supports categorical-violence conclusion)