645 F. App'x 954
11th Cir.2016Background
- Three defendants (Johnson, Davis, Williams) were tried for a multi-incident conspiracy and Hobbs Act robberies of Brink’s couriers and related firearms offenses tied to robberies in 2005 and multiple attempts and a fatal October 1, 2010 robbery in Florida. Co-defendant Moss pleaded guilty and cooperated, testifying about planning, roles, disguises, getaway cars, and linking defendants through cell-phone activity and surveillance footage.
- Cell‑tower and phone records, surveillance video, eyewitnesses, and Moss’s testimony placed defendants at or near bank sites and linked calls among participants during planning and execution; Williams was arrested near a stolen vehicle with a wig and gave videotaped statements.
- Indictment charged conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §1951), attempted and completed Hobbs Act robberies, multiple §924 firearms offenses (including 924(j) for death), and a §922(g) felon‑in‑possession count against Williams.
- Juries returned mixed verdicts across co‑defendants; Johnson convicted of conspiracy and later entered an Alford plea on one count; Davis and Williams convicted on several counts and sentenced (Davis 20 years; Williams 23 years total across counts).
- On appeal defendants raised sufficiency of evidence, severance, limits on cross‑examination of cooperating witness, multiple evidentiary challenges (including admission of cell‑tower records), jury‑instruction/Allen charge issues and verdict form handling, newly discovered evidence (NSA cell‑site collection), and sentencing challenges (reasonableness and Sixth Amendment claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Johnson’s conspiracy conviction | Gov: Moss’s corroborated testimony plus records and video prove conspiracy | Johnson: Moss unreliable so evidence insufficient | Affirmed — evidence (Moss corroborated by records/video) sufficient |
| Severance for Williams | Gov: joint trial appropriate; limiting instructions suffice | Williams: prejudicial spillover from co‑defendants’ unrelated crimes required severance | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; curative instructions and stipulation avoided prejudice |
| Limits on cross‑examination of cooperating witness (Moss) | Defendants: exclusions prevented probing Moss’s motive to lie, violating Confrontation Clause | Gov: defense had ample cross‑examination opportunities | Affirmed — no constitutional error; cross‑examination adequate |
| Admission of cell‑tower/phone records (Fourth Amendment) | Defendants: records obtained without probable‑cause warrant; admission violated 4th | Gov: records admissible under applicable law and orders | Affirmed — issue foreclosed by United States v. Davis; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (obtaining telephony business records under §2703(d) is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (appellate court defers to jury credibility determinations)
- United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011) (severance standard; joint trials normally favored unless serious risk of prejudice)
- United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2009) (scope of cross‑examination review; defendant entitled to opportunity for effective cross‑examination)
- United States v. Smith, 741 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2013) (sentencing enhancements based on judicial fact‑finding do not violate Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for reasonableness of sentences)