United States v. Nelson, 3:17-cr-00533

Background

Defendants Raymond Foakes and Christopher Ranieri, associated with the Hells Angels Sonoma County (HASC), were convicted by a jury on several RICO-related charges (including conspiracy, assault, witness tampering, and murder conspiracy) following a second multi-defendant trial.
Both defendants sought a new trial under Rule 33, claiming various errors warranted vacatur of the convictions, including procedural issues related to COVID-19 protocols, evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence.
The government presented substantial evidence at trial tying both defendants to a violent and criminal enterprise, including testimony regarding assaults, drug trafficking, intimidation, and the murder of Joel Silva.
Key challenges by the defense included the sufficiency and admissibility of certain witness testimony, alleged improper closure and severance issues, and the claim that some evidence was improperly admitted or suppressed (Brady/Giglio claims).
The court reviewed all arguments, prior orders, and the factual record, including post-trial evidentiary hearings regarding witness credibility and potential recantations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
COVID-19 Court Procedures	Ranieri claimed they violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments due to masked participants and distancing.	Government argued all parties were similarly affected; no constitutional violation.	Procedures were constitutionally permissible; no unfair prejudice.
Motion to Sever	Ranieri argued joint trial was prejudicial due to cross-admissible evidence and less culpability.	Government maintained conspiracy charges justified joint trial; limiting instructions sufficed.	Severance denied; joint trial appropriate for conspiracy.
Challenged Witness Testimony	Defendants argued certain testimony (esp. Hardisty, M.J.) was false or unduly prejudicial.	Government argued witness credibility was a jury issue; evidence supported convictions.	Testimony admissible; credibility for jury; evidence sufficient.
Brady/Giglio/Discovery Violations	Foakes claimed government withheld or suppressed impeaching material about key witnesses.	Government argued evidence was disclosed timely or immaterial to verdict.	No Brady/Giglio violation; no prejudice from any delay.
Prosecutorial Misconduct	Defendants alleged various forms (closing argument misstatements, vouching, improper evidence use).	Government denied misconduct; argued arguments/remarks aligned with evidence/law.	No prejudicial misconduct found; claims rejected.
Request for New Trial (Rule 33)	Both defendants argued evidence weighed against verdict; new trial needed for justice.	Government argued overwhelming guilt; no miscarriage of justice.	Motions for new trial denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressing the broader standard for Rule 33 motions compared to acquittal motions)
United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) (court’s ability to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility under Rule 33)
United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors for severance and joint trials in conspiracy cases)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (government’s duty to disclose material impeachment evidence)
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (scope of RICO conspiracy and elements)
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (requirements for an association-in-fact RICO enterprise)