United States v. Granton & Hardy
704 F. App'x 1
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Aaron Granton and Damion Hardy were convicted by a jury of RICO, murder and kidnapping in aid of racketeering, drug distribution, and related conspiracy charges; both received principally life sentences.
- Hardy was a long‑time leader of the Cash Money Brothers (CMB); Granton was a lieutenant and enforcer who committed several violent acts attributed to CMB.
- Hardy suffered from schizophrenia with messianic delusions; he was found incompetent in earlier proceedings, forcibly medicated, and the district court later found him competent to stand trial in April 2015.
- The government presented evidence of CMB’s organization, longevity, murders, threats to witnesses, and other violent acts spanning the charged period (1991–2004).
- Defendants raised multiple challenges on appeal: Hardy’s competency finding, empaneling an anonymous jury, sufficiency of the evidence (RICO enterprise continuity), certain evidentiary rulings, and trial‑court colloquies with witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Granton/Hardy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence to stand trial | Medication and expert evaluation showed Hardy had sufficient factual and rational understanding and could assist counsel | Hardy lacked ability to assist his defense due to persistent delusions (Ethou law, fictional Supreme Court ruling) | District court’s competence finding affirmed; no clear error given improvement on meds and expert support (preponderance standard) |
| Anonymous jury | Dangerous, high‑profile case with witness‑intimidation risk and media attention justified juror anonymity with precautions | Anonymous jury prejudiced defendants | Affirmed; trial court acted within discretion and took minimizing precautions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO enterprise continuity | Evidence showed an ongoing associated‑in‑fact enterprise (purpose, relationships, longevity) through charged period | Enterprise did not continue through 2004 (leader imprisoned, membership shifts, personal motives) | Affirmed; evidence sufficed to prove enterprise continuity and that personal motives do not preclude enterprise acts |
| Evidentiary rulings & judge colloquies | Evidence and limited judicial questioning did not deprive defendants of a fair trial; curative instructions given | Admission of unobjected bad‑acts evidence and judge’s colloquies were prejudicial | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion or plain error given overwhelming evidence and curative instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (competency standard and right not to be tried if inability to assist defense)
- United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.) (competency review and standard of deference)
- United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir.) (competency elements)
- United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (highly deferential competency review)
- United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir.) (standards for anonymous juries)
- United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir.) (anonymous jury and protective measures)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (association‑in‑fact enterprise elements)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (RICO enterprise and pattern requirements)
- United States v. Morales, 185 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.) (enterprise continuity analysis)
- United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir.) (enterprise persists despite leader imprisonment)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (conspiracy statute 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require overt act)