Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 10-4725
No. 10-4729
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00086-WDQ-7; 1:08-cr-00086-WDQ-11)
Argued:
Decided:
Ronnie
Thomas
and
Sherman
Pride
appeal
their
Organizations
Act
(RICO),
18
U.S.C.
1962(d),
by
sufficiency of the evidence for the jurys finding that the RICO
Conspiracy included conspiracy to commit murder as an objective
and certain evidentiary determinations by the district court.
Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Ronnie
Thomas
and
Sherman
Pride
were
indicted
for
RICO
At
trial,
an
the
Governments
evidence
showed
that
TTP
was
Willock,
government
witness
and
TTP
leader,
generally
expanding
TTPs
influence.
As
TTPs
leader,
Thomas
and
Pride
as
with
others)
controlling
as
controlling
the
eastern
shore
West
of
Maryland, which meant that the Defendants had the power to give
orders within their geographic area and decide whether to have a
person killed.
between
himself
Thomas.
Thomas
had
asked
Willocks
paid and collected dues, some of which was used to purchase guns
for the gang; and agreed to assist Sneed in selling heroin.
Sneed also testified about the so-called Stop Snitching videos.
Sneed
appeared
in
one
such
video
and
named
people
for
activities.
members
Governments
criminal
evidence
activities.
established
Taken
that
TTP
together,
was
the
drug-
eight
of
RICO
days
of
Conspiracy,
testimony,
jury
convicted
and
of
the
additional
Pride
to
commit
murder.
The
district
court
sentenced
II.
A.
Defendants
insufficient
to
argue
that
sustain
the
the
Governments
jurys
finding
evidence
that
the
was
RICO
We disagree.
1.
This Court reviews the denial of a motion challenging the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
de
novo.
United
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
following
States
v.
In reviewing
conviction,
the
government,
favorable
verdict
inferences
if
essential
doubt.
assuming
any
from
rational
elements
its
of
it,
and
trier
the
Id. at 571-72.
credibility,
of
crime
will
fact
and
sustain
could
charged
drawing
the
have
beyond
all
jurys
found
the
reasonable
support the verdict, after viewing all of the evidence and the
inferences
therefrom
in
the
light
substantial
of
fact
evidence
could
accept
most
favorable
to
the
evidence
that
as
adequate
and
reasonable
sufficient
to
rare
case
where
the
prosecutions
failure
is
clear.
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
2.
To
convict
the
Defendants
of
RICO
Conspiracy,2
the
the enterprise
commerce;
affected
Defendants were
the enterprise;
associated
interstate
with
or
or
foreign
employed
by
See
the
enterprise
engaged
racketeering activity;3 and
J.A.
2342,
2355-56,
2521.
in
Notably,
pattern
Defendants
of
do
not
trafficking
argument
as
is
objectives.
limited
to
Rather,
the
jurys
Defendants
finding
that
objective.
Willock
testified
that
TTP
members
were
J.A. 539.
leaders
within
TTP
with
the
power
to
put
somebody
on
the
menu,
which
he
described
as
meaning
that
J.A. 498-99.
purchased
whether
Sneed
it
guns
was
also
to
do
anything
murder,
corroborated
that
robbery,
Willocks
needed
to
whatever.
testimony
be
done,
J.A.
1359.
that
the
term
J.A. 1396.
in
letter
entered
into
evidence:
[The
color
J.A. 1641.
testimony
well
of
Willock
and
Sneed,
as
as
As such, the
the
letter
from
U.S.
Government
813,
819
(1999),
must
prove
for
specific
the
acts
of
proposition
murder
that
to
the
sustain
violations
committed
by
the
defendant
as
part
of
But the
Instead, a RICO
or
offense.
agree
to
facilitate
Id.
each
and
every
part
of
the
substantive
pursue
the
same
criminal
objective
regardless
of
1263-64
(11th
Cir.
2007)
(noting
that
RICO
Conspiracy
concede
that
numerous
government
witnesses
the
groups
objective.
objectives
or
as
means
to
accomplish
an
juror
to
find
that
TTPs
racketeering
activities
B.
Defendants
next
argue
that
the
district
court
erred
in
the
history
of
the
gang
known
as
the
Bloods.
First,
Defendants
conduit
for
allege
testimonial
that
Hodnickis
hearsay,
thereby
testimony
violating
was
their
We disagree.
1.
We review for abuse of discretion the district courts
decision
to
Evidence 702.
admit
expert
testimony
under
Federal
Rule
of
Cir. 2007); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137,
158
(1999)
(Rule
702
grants
the
district
judge
the
United States v.
Johnson,
(quotation
omitted).
617
F.3d
286,
292
(4th
Cir.
2010)
marks
de
an
novo,
however,
Confrontation Clause.
evidentiary
ruling
We review
implicating
the
702
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence
allows
If
scientific,
technical,
or
other
specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience,
training,
or
education,
may
testify
thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1)
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
12
for
(2)
the
testimony
is
the
product
of
reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has
applied the principles and methods reliably to the
facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
U.S.
579
(1993),
Supreme
Court,
in
addressing
the
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248, 261 (4th Cir.
2005) (When a party seeks to admit any expert testimony, the
district courts obligation is gate-keeping. (quotation marks
omitted)).
[I]n
considering
the
admissibility
of
testimony
construed
1160,
1168
liberally.
(9th
Cir.
United
2000)
States
(affirming
v.
Hankey,
admission
203
of
F.3d
expert
2.
Here,
experience
Defendants
were
assert
insufficient
that
for
Hodnickis
his
training
qualification
by
and
the
Defendants point
13
symbology
evidence
and
colloquialismswas
an
extensive
after
voir
only
dire
admitted
into
into
Hodnickis
qualifications as an expert.
Hodnicki
officer
had
experience
been
for
Enforcement
three
Team
police
years
of
the
as
for
ten
detective
Criminal
years,
with
with
the
Intelligence
Gang
Section.
conducted
over
field
6,000
interviews
hours
of
local
community
college
gang
surveillance
with
members
in
the
and
field,
his
knowledge
and
the
type
of
expert
testimony
proffered
by
the
of
its
The
relevance
Daubert
and
factors
reliability
(peer
was
sufficiently
review,
publication,
kind
of
testimony
[from
gang
expert],
whose
reliability
Hankey, 203
F.3d at 1168; see also Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150 (In [some]
cases, the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal
knowledge
or
experience.).
Here,
the
extent
of
Hodnickis
3.
Defendants also allege that Hodnickis testimony, which was
based, among other things, upon interviews with gang members,
contained
testimonial
Confrontation
Crawford
v.
Clause
hearsay
rights
Washington,
541
in
under
the
U.S.
36
testimonial
hearsay
Sixth
of
their
Amendment.
(2004).
We
See
recently
violation
raises
As we stated in Palacios,
special
concerns
because
it
expert
merely
witnesses
because
from
those
offering
judgments
their
were
in
independent
some
part
15
Here, as in Palacios, we
C.
Finally, Thomas contends that the district court erred when
it denied his motion to suppress the Stop Snitching 2 video
pursuant
Evidence.
to
Rules
403
and
404(b)
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
We disagree.
1.
A district courts determination of the admissibility of
evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
641 F.3d at 574.
Penniegraft,
States
(quoting
Fed.
evidence
may
substantially
v.
Queen,
132
R.
Evid.
401,
be
excluded
outweighed
F.3d
991,
402).
if
by
994
However,
its
the
Cir.
even
probative
possibility
(4th
1997)
relevant
value
of
is
unfair
substantially
outweighs
16
the
probative
value
of
the
evidence.
Rule 404(b) is a
except
disposition.
that
which
tends
to
prove
only
criminal
omitted).
2.
Here, Stop Snitching 2 was relevant to Thomass membership
in TTP, as well as to TTPs activities and objectives.
The
from
recognition
the
through
by
trying
distribution
17
of
to
get
the
Tree
DVD.
Top
more
J.A.
532.
Additionally,
wiretapped
conversation
between
Thomas
and
were
directly
probative
of
the
charges
against
Thomas.
Moreover, Thomass contention that the probative value of
Stop
Snitching
prejudice
is
was
without
substantially
merit.
To
outweighed
require
the
by
its
unfair
exclusion
of
Id.
536
F.3d
306,
319
(4th
Cir.
2008).
Although
Stop
Therefore, we
18
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
19