1:19-cr-00170
W.D.N.Y.Sep 19, 2025Background
- Payne was found guilty by a jury on all ten counts after ~five weeks of trial (verdict June 20, 2025).
- Counts 1–10 tied to a multi‑conspiracy involving drugs, firearms, and violence, including murder of a federal informant (Jalovick) and related obstruction/retaliation counts.
- Jury returned special first‑degree murder findings on Counts 5–8 and 10.
- Post‑trial motions under Rule 29 and Rule 33 were filed (Aug. 11, 2025) and argued Sept. 2, 2025; Judge denied the motions.
- The court rejected arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on Counts 2–3 and 5–8, and upheld the verdicts after reviewing evidentiary rulings, conflicts in testimony, and alleged trial‑level deficiencies.
- Sentence is scheduled for Oct. 27, 2025, with guidance to proceed with sentencing despite trial delays.]
- Note: The opinion discusses Rule 29 sufficiency, Pinkerton liability, premeditation/malice for first‑degree murder, nexus/knowledge under §1512 and §1513, and various evidentiary rulings in the Rule 33 context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Counts 2–3 | Knew Defendant distributed to Jalovick; Pinkerton liability supports Counts 2–3. | Merely present during buys; no direct participation. | Counts 2–3 upheld under Pinkerton liability; sufficient circumstantial evidence and co‑conspirator testimony supported conviction. |
| Premeditation and malice for Counts 5–8 | Evidence showed conscious intent to kill Jalovick and planning sequence. | No clear premeditation; shooting occurred spontaneously. | Court found premeditation and malice supported; multiple factors and admissions supported first‑degree murder findings. |
| Nexus/knowledge for §1512 §1513 obstruction counts | Defendant killed to retaliate against informant and obstruct proceedings; nexus shown by foreseeability and relation to federal investigation. | No proof defendant believed or anticipated federal proceeding; lack of nexus. | Nexus and knowledge elements satisfied; conduct reasonably related to official proceedings and retaliation against informant. |
| Rule 33 and evidentiary rulings/mistrial claim | Rulings and conduct did not create manifest injustice; trial errors were harmless in light of the overall strong evidence. | Rulings and alleged prosecutorial misconduct warrant a new trial. | Rule 33 motions denied; no manifest injustice found; mistrial claim rejected; evidentiary rulings affirmed. |
| Mental health/competency argument | Competence issues appropriately addressed; no basis for postponement of trial. | Mid‑trial mental health concerns warranted further evaluation. | Court denied relief; competence and treatment issues not necessitating a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1946) (liability for co‑conspirators for offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy)
- United States v. Kwong, 14 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 1994) (sufficiency review; appellate standard and favorable inferences)
- United States v. Jiau, 734 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 29/33 sufficiency; standard of review; totality of evidence)
- United States v. Escobar, 462 F. App’x 58 (2d Cir. 2012) ( Pinkerton/agency liability; jury instructions standard (summary order))
- United States v. Draper, 553 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2009) (retaliation for information against federal officers; intent to retaliate)