United States v. Thomas
61 F. Supp. 3d 1221
D.N.M.2014Background
- Defendant David Savoy Thomas indicted on five counts: four Hobbs Act robberies (stores near Lomas & San Pedro, Albuquerque) and one firearms enhancement.
- Incidents: May 1, 2010 McDonald’s robbery (approx. $60); Aug. 10, 2013 Family Dollar robbery ($120); Aug. 16, 2013 attempted Family Dollar robbery (photo ID from array); Oct. 19, 2013 Check ’n Go robbery ($3,723) (surveillance recovered).
- Surveillance video from McDonald’s and Family Dollar were not preserved or were unusable; defendant claims loss of potentially exculpatory evidence.
- Government never had usable copies of some recordings; FBI obtained Check ’n Go footage.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Counts I & II (Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood theory) and, alternatively, to sever Count I from Counts II–V under Rules 8 and 14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal required for alleged destruction/non-preservation of surveillance video (Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood) | Gov: No duty to preserve evidence the government never possessed; Trombetta/Youngblood apply to government-held evidence only | Thomas: Lost/erased videos were potentially exculpatory and government’s failure requires dismissal or relief | Denied — court held precedents regulate government conduct only for evidence in its possession; no bad faith shown and videos were unusable or never in gov’t custody |
| Whether Count I should be severed from Counts II–V (Rules 8 & 14) | Gov: Counts are of similar character and joinder is proper; any prejudice can be cured by limiting instructions | Thomas: Joinder of Count I (different date/location) would be prejudicial and justify separate trial | Denied — robberies sufficiently similar for joinder; defendant failed to show the heavy burden of undue prejudice; limiting instructions and efficiency favor joinder |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rutland, 705 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2013) (depletion theory supports Hobbs Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Curtis, 344 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 2003) (robbery depletion of business assets suffices for interstate commerce)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (government must preserve evidence with apparent exculpatory value and uniqueness)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad-faith requirement when destroyed evidence is only potentially useful)
- United States v. Bagby, 696 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 8 should be construed broadly for joinder)
- United States v. Muniz, 1 F.3d 1018 (10th Cir. 1993) (defendant bears heavy burden to show prejudice warranting severance)
- United States v. Olsen, 519 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2008) (Rule 14 allows severance when joinder prejudices defendant)
- United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (Rule 14 prejudice inquiry is distinct from Rule 8 technical joinder analysis)