United States v. Reid
7:20-cr-00626-PMH
| S.D.N.Y. | May 14, 2024Background
- Dwight Reid and Christopher Erskine, members of the Untouchable Gorilla Stone Nation gang, were convicted by a jury of racketeering conspiracy, narcotics trafficking conspiracy, and (for Erskine) possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- Both defendants were tried together after all other co-defendants pled guilty; the case involved substantial testimony from cooperating former gang members.
- After trial, both Reid and Erskine moved under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33 to set aside the verdicts or order a new trial.
- The defense challenged the credibility of a key government witness, aspects of the jury instructions and verdict sheet, and evidence admitted at trial.
- Reid also raised issues regarding potential juror bias, while Erskine claimed a Brady violation for withheld cell phone evidence and argued insufficient evidence supported the drug convictions.
- The Court reviewed the sufficiency of evidence claims under a highly deferential standard and also addressed allegations of evidentiary error and fairness of the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reid/Erskine) | Defendant's Argument (USA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of government witness Luster | Luster's testimony was inconsistent and not believable | Credibility is for jury; testimonies were consistent overall | Jury's credibility decision stands; relief denied |
| Admissibility of alleged Rule 404(b) evidence | Certain acts should be excluded as improper 404(b) proof | Acts were admissible as direct evidence of racketeering | Evidence properly admitted as direct proof |
| Verdict sheet and interrogatories | Needed interrogatories to identify predicate acts | No requirement for special interrogatories; proper form used | No legal error; verdict sheet and instructions sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for narcotics charges | Not enough evidence, especially as to drug quantities | Sufficient circumstantial and testimonial evidence presented | Evidence sufficient for jury to convict |
| Alleged Brady violation (cell phone evidence) | Cell phone contents might be exculpatory | Government did not possess unencrypted phone contents | No Brady violation; government did not withhold evidence |
| Possible juror bias | Juror No. 8 might be biased due to past events | Court conducted sufficient inquiry; no evidence of bias | No basis for new trial; objection waived/not substantiated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims)
- United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) (Rule 33 new trial motions granted only in extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) (burden for granting new trial in interest of justice)
- United States v. Josephberg, 562 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2009) (jury may credit part of witness’s testimony and disbelieve another part)
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (single conspiracy can have multiple related phases if mutual dependence exists)