United States v. Latulas
683 F. App'x 51
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Yarbrough Latulas was convicted after a jury trial of (1) conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), (2) Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and (3) using/brandishing a firearm in relation to the robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), (B)(i)).
- District Court sentenced Latulas to 216 months' imprisonment; appeal followed from the Northern District of New York judgment.
- At trial, a government witness (Ward Thompson) spontaneously identified Latulas as involved in the robbery; the court sustained defense objection and struck the testimony.
- The jury was instructed not to consider the struck testimony; other evidence included an accomplice identification, possession of robbery proceeds, and two witnesses identifying Latulas from surveillance video by appearance/gait.
- Latulas moved for a mistrial based on the improper identification, moved for judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence, and argued on appeal that the government violated Brady by failing to disclose Facebook photographs of him with firearms (first raised on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial was erroneous after a witness made an unsolicited ID | Gov: Court cured prejudice by striking testimony, sustaining objection, and instructing jury | Latulas: Prejudicial courtroom ID required mistrial | Denied: Court did not abuse discretion; jury presumed to follow instructions and other strong evidence existed |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Gov: Evidence (accomplice ID, fruits of robbery, video IDs) suffices | Latulas: Witness descriptions conflicted with his characteristics; insufficient to convict | Denied: Reviewing de novo, evidence viewed for government sufficed for a rational juror to convict |
| Whether government violated Brady by withholding Facebook photos of Latulas with guns | Gov: Photos were not withheld; shown at trial when defendant testified; not favorable/ exculpatory | Latulas: Photos impeach his claim he "doesn't like guns" and should have been disclosed earlier | Denied: Photos were not Brady material because they were not favorable to defendant; no Brady violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yannai, 791 F.3d 226 (2d Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion review on mistrial)
- United States v. Agrawal, 726 F.3d 235 (2d Cir.) (jury presumed to follow court instructions)
- United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.) (sufficiency review standard; view evidence favorably to government)
- United States v. Rowland, 826 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.) (Brady materiality standard)
- United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (Brady review is de novo)
- United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (evidence favorable to accused must be exculpatory or impeaching)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory or impeaching evidence)