United States v. Lee
834 F.3d 145
2d Cir.2016Background
- Defendants Hisan Lee, Delroy Lee, Selbourne Waite, and Levar Gayle were convicted after a six-week jury trial of racketeering-related offenses including multiple substantive Hobbs Act robberies (several targeting suspected drug dealers) and associated firearms/murder charges; Waite’s sentence is remanded for resentencing in a separate summary order.
- The DeKalb Avenue Crew (led by Bobby Saunders) ran a marijuana/crack distribution and drug-robbery enterprise in the Bronx; members routinely targeted drug dealers and carried firearms.
- The government stipulated that all cocaine and some marijuana travel in interstate commerce; the interstate nexus for marijuana could be uncertain for a particular robbery absent specific proof.
- Defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence on the Hobbs Act interstate-commerce element for several robberies (including the robbery/murder of Oneil Johnson) and Gayle challenged trial rulings (late-disclosed post-arrest remark by an ATF agent, denial of sequestration, and limits on summation) as causing prejudice requiring reversal.
- The Second Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. United States to hold that targeting a marijuana dealer (or cocaine dealer) for drugs or drug proceeds satisfies the Hobbs Act interstate-commerce element and rejected Gayle’s claims of prejudicial error from the late disclosure and agent sequestration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of interstate-commerce element for Hobbs Act robberies (general) | Convictions supported because robberies targeted narcotics or drug proceeds; Taylor confirms intrastate marijuana markets are commerce over which U.S. has jurisdiction | Need more specific proof that the particular drugs/proceeds were in interstate commerce; prior Circuit precedent (Needham/Parkes) required more than evidence of targeting drug dealers | Affirmed: under Taylor, targeting marijuana dealers (or cocaine dealers) for drugs/proceeds suffices to prove Hobbs Act interstate-commerce element |
| Application to specific robberies (Oneil Johnson, Murdoch, Strang, Paulding, Hone) | Evidence showed defendants targeted dealers or drug transactions; some robberies involved cocaine or circumstantial proof of pounds of marijuana/money | Defendants argued lack of direct proof that seized drugs/proceeds traveled interstate or that drugs existed at the scene | Affirmed: jury could reasonably find targets were drug dealers or drug transactions; Taylor and stipulation re: cocaine satisfied interstate nexus |
| Gayle — late disclosure of agent’s post-arrest recognition of Burke (Rule 16 / due process) | Admission of the spontaneous remark was permissible; any Rule 16 violation did not cause substantial prejudice and the district court’s remedy was within discretion | Failure to disclose prejudiced defense strategy; statement was critical and possibly fabricated, warranting exclusion and reversal | Affirmed: late disclosure found negligent but not substantially prejudicial; district court did not abuse discretion in admitting the testimony nor violate due process |
| Gayle — denial of agent sequestration and restriction on summation | Case agent exemption from sequestration permissible under Rule 615(b); limiting counsel’s improper assertions in summation was proper exercise of discretion | Presence of case agent allowed tailoring/fabrication of testimony; exclusion from arguing agent was an ‘interested witness’ prejudiced defense | Affirmed: exemption for case agent appropriate; summation limitation not an abuse of discretion and caused no reversible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016) (holding that robbing a marijuana dealer for marijuana or proceeds satisfies Hobbs Act interstate-commerce element)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal commerce jurisdiction extends to intrastate marijuana market as part of class of regulated activity)
- United States v. Needham, 604 F.3d 673 (2d Cir. 2010) (pre‑Taylor Second Circuit decision requiring evidence beyond general drug activity to prove interstate nexus under Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2007) (jury must make an independent finding of interstate-commerce effect in Hobbs Act prosecutions)
- United States v. Fabian, 312 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 2002) (evidence a defendant believed he was robbing drug proceeds treated as sufficient to support Hobbs Act jurisdiction)