United States v. Jordon Ford
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14998
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Four defendants (Ford, Perdue, Nathan, Henry) were charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit robberies affecting interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 1951), multiple Hobbs Act robberies, and multiple § 924(c) firearms counts; Ford and Perdue were convicted at trial; Nathan and Henry pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count.
- Sentences: Ford (1,392 months), Perdue (1,464 months), Nathan (168 months), Henry (150 months). Appeals contest evidentiary rulings, Confrontation/Bruton issues, jury-misconduct handling (Remmer), interstate-commerce stipulation, and several sentencing challenges.
- Trial evidence included testimony about defendants’ Vice Lords gang affiliation and a witness’s testimony about emotional effects after a robbery; Ford and Perdue objected to gang and witness-impact evidence.
- Perdue sought to cross-examine an FBI agent about exculpatory out-of-court statements; Plantz testified to inculpatory statements by Perdue; Ford challenged admission of portions of Perdue’s statement under Bruton.
- A juror sent a note expressing safety concerns after seeing defendants stare at jurors; the district judge questioned that juror in open court and instructed the panel to report concerns; defendants sought Remmer hearings.
- Sentencing issues included: multiple § 924(c) convictions tied to both the conspiracy and separate robbery counts (double jeopardy argument); whether unenumerated robberies could be counted as conspiracy object offenses under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d); and procedural explanations after departures/variances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang-affiliation evidence | Government: gang evidence showed relationship among co-conspirators and was relevant to conspiracy | Ford/Perdue: affiliation irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Admission was within district court’s discretion; probative of the conspiratorial subset and not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Witness’s testimony about emotional effect of robbery (interstate-commerce relevance) | Government: impact on people can show interference with commerce | Ford/Perdue: testimony irrelevant (and stipulated interstate-commerce element) | Even if attenuated relevance, admission harmless because parties stipulated interstate-commerce and testimony was not inflammatory. |
| Limitation on cross-examination / hearsay (Confrontation) | Perdue: barred from eliciting exculpatory out-of-court statements violated Confrontation Clause and rule of completeness | Government: statements were hearsay not within exception; limitation proper | District court did not abuse its discretion; excluding inadmissible hearsay does not violate Confrontation Clause and rule of completeness does not compel admission of inadmissible hearsay. |
| Introduction of non-testifying co-defendant’s statement (Bruton) | Ford: Perdue’s out-of-court statement implicated Ford despite redaction, violating Bruton | Government: redactions prevented naming Ford; any linkage required combining with other evidence which Bruton permits | No Bruton violation: redacted statement did not facially incriminate Ford and any inference required linking to other evidence. |
| Juror safety note and Remmer hearing | Defendants: trial court should have held individualized Remmer hearings for jurors | Government: juror concern was personal reaction, not extraneous contact | No Remmer error: juror’s fear was a personal reaction (not extraneous influence); district court acted within discretion. |
| Stipulation to interstate-commerce element | Ford/Perdue: stipulation may have been entered without their informed waiver; challenges subject-matter jurisdiction | Government: counsel signed stipulation before trial | Court declined to resolve on appeal (facts outside record); counsel-signed stipulation stands and challenges better raised in § 2255. |
| Multiple § 924(c) convictions predicated on conspiracy and robberies (double jeopardy) | Ford/Perdue: impermissible multiple punishment when § 924(c) is tied to same conspiracy | Government: each § 924(c) count was also tied to a distinct robbery predicate | No double jeopardy violation: multiple § 924(c) convictions upheld where each is predicated on a separate predicate act (distinct robberies). |
| Counting unenumerated robberies as conspiracy objects (§ 1B1.2(d)) | Nathan: Guidelines misapplied by counting robberies not specifically alleged in conspiracy count | Government: Application Note 4 permits counting where court would convict as trier of fact | Court affirmed: district court may count object offenses not enumerated in conspiracy count if, applying Application Note 4, it would convict as trier of fact. |
| Sentencing findings and Sixth Amendment (Booker context) | Nathan: sentencing enhancement based on judicial factfinding violated right to jury | Government: under advisory Guidelines and Booker, judge may rely on extra-verdict facts | No Sixth Amendment violation in this advisory-Guidelines sentencing context; court may find facts for guideline application. |
| Procedural explanation after § 5K1.1 departure / variance | Henry: court failed to state adjusted Guidelines range and explain variance magnitude | Government: court appropriately stated pre-departure range and explained reasons | No plain error: court provided applicable Guidelines range pre-departure and no mandatory requirement to announce a new numeric range after departure. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) (unfair-prejudice standard for Rule 403 in context of gang evidence)
- United States v. Fisher, 648 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (introduction of non-testifying co-defendant’s confession may violate Confrontation Clause)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (trial court’s duty to determine circumstances when possible juror bias is alleged)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory nature of the Guidelines and judge’s ability to find facts for sentencing)
- United States v. Robles, 562 F.3d 451 (2d Cir. 2009) (Application Note 4 permits counting object offenses not enumerated in conspiracy count if court would convict as trier of fact)
- United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (§ 3553(a) factors do not authorize sentencing below statutory mandatory minimums)
- United States v. Cook, 453 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2006) (district court may rely on extra-verdict facts in guideline calculations)