United States v. James and Mallay
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6259
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- James and Mallay were convicted in the Eastern District of New York on racketeering, murder-for-hire, mail fraud, and money laundering charges arising from a conspiracy to obtain life insurance policies and murder policyholders to collect on those policies; Mallay was convicted of all charged murders, James of two, with death sentences converted to life imprisonment after a nonunanimous jury for death.
- The murders at issue included Vernon Peter, Alfred Gobin, Hardeo Sewnanan, and Basdeo Somaipersaud, with schemes involving insurance payouts and forged or illicit policy arrangements.
- The district court admitted various forensic and autopsy-related evidence, and the government relied on both local and Guyanese forensic testimony to prove causes of death connected to the conspiracy.
- On appeal, defendants challenge Confrontation Clause issues, prior-argument evidence, cross-examination limits, severance, suppression motions, admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and a post-trial new-trial claim.
- The panel majority affirms the district court’s judgments, addressing multiple evidentiary and procedural challenges, with a concurrence by Judge Eaton disagreeing on the testimonial status of autopsy evidence.
- Betty Peter and Baskinand Motillal’s severed trials are referenced as separate proceedings with Peter later cooperating for James’s trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability to autopsy testimony | Autopsy testim ony by one OCME member on another’s autopsy and testing by a non-participating examiner implicates Confrontation Clause. | Such testimony should be testimonial post-Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming; requires confrontation. | Autopsy evidence not plainly testimonial as to Somaipersaud; majority permits surrogate autopsy testimony under business/public records rationale in light of Williams and Melendez-Diaz distinction. |
| Admission of toxicology report without the preparer’s presence | Toxicology tests ordered by a medical examiner should be treated as testimonial under recent cases. | Tests were non-testimonial, not prepared for trial, and within business-records exception. | Toxicology report admitted; court found it non-testimonial and admissible. |
| Exclusion of prior government rebuttal statement of a cooperating witness | Prior inconsistent prosecution position should be admissible to rebut credibility issues. | Pretrial inconsistency should be excluded absent innocent explanation. | District court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error in excluding the prior statement. |
| Motion to sever co-defendants’ trials | Joint trial admissibly exposed James to guilt by association with Mallay’s acts. | Severance required due to prejudicial risk from differing charges. | No abuse; joint trial proper given overlapping racketeering scheme and admissible co-conspirator evidence. |
| Motion to suppress statements to government informant | Indictment timing did not bar admission of statements under Sixth Amendment considerations. | Counsel was ineffective due to pre-indictment/coercive context; right to counsel implicated. | Waived on appeal; even so, offense-specific analysis shows Sixth Amendment did not bar admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (foundation of Confrontation Clause; testimonial vs non-testimonial distinctions)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial if created for trial use)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (DNA test reports; testimonial when used as evidence against defendant)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (DNA match testimony by outside laboratory; plurality explores testimonial status)
- United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 2006) (autopsy reports admissible as business/public records not per se testimonial)