United States v. Stevens
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45358
W.D. La.2011Background
- Gilmore and Stevens, Monroe City Council members, are charged in a two-count Indictment with RICO 1962(c) and Hobbs Act 1951 violations.
- Indictment alleges nine predicate acts by Stevens and four by Gilmore involving bribes and other valuable benefits from a cooperating witness to influence city matters.
- Evidence will include recordings of separate conversations between the CW and each defendant (no joint recording with both).
- Defendants moved to sever, dismiss Count 1, and require a bill of particulars; Stevens joined in the motions.
- Court denied all motions, addressing Rule 14 severance, Crawford/Bruton Confrontation Clause concerns, and the admissibility framework for co-conspirator statements.
- Pretrial rulings also set the stage for handling transcripts and redactions of recordings at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance is warranted under Rule 14. | Severance unnecessary; joint trial efficient with limiting instructions. | Joint trial would prejudice each defendant due to Bruton/Crawford concerns. | Denied; no compelling prejudice found; joint trial permitted with instructions. |
| Whether Count 1 (RICO pattern) should be dismissed as a matter of law or as vague. | Predicate acts meet pattern and continuity; open-ended continuity present. | Insufficient related predicates and vague pattern; fails RICO continuity. | Denied; sufficient pattern/continuity shown; not unconstitutionally vague as applied. |
| Whether a bill of particulars is required for the charges. | Bill of particulars aids defense by identifying specifics of bribes. | Discovery suffices; bill would be duplicative and overly detailed. | Denied; indictment and discovery provide adequate notice. |
| Whether admission of co-defendant statements and CW recordings violates Confrontation or hearsay rules. | Recordings and transcripts may be admitted with proper redaction/limiting instructions. | Potential testimonial/co-conspirator issues; Bruton concerns if not properly redacted. | Denied; statements non-testimonial where applicable; CW statements available for cross; redaction/limiting instructions acceptable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (limits on co-defendant confessions in joint trials without testifying)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (defining pattern and continuity for RICO)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (joint trials favored; severance only for prejudicial harm)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (limits and use of co-conspirator statements in trials)
- Walker v. United States, 348 F. App'x 910 (5th Cir. 2009) (continuity where frequency/seriousness show future threat)
- Abell v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill., 946 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1991) (vagueness challenge to RICO pattern element as applied)