Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Allen

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 20, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CURTIS WAYNE ALLEN, PATRICK EUGENE STEIN, GAVIN WAYNE WRIGHT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ERIC F. MELGREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Curtis Wayne Allen's motion for new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Defendants Patrick Stein and Gavin Wright joined this motion. The Court has read the briefs, reviewed the record and transcripts, and considered the evidence submitted by the parties.[1] For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for New Trial (Doc. 404).

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         This case was initiated after a grand jury returned an indictment on October 19, 2016, charging Defendants with one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. Defendants were later indicted on one count of civil rights conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. In addition, Defendant Stein was charged with two weapons-related charges, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and Defendant Wright was charged with lying to the FBI to obstruct its investigation into this matter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

         Due to the complexity of this case, and the seriousness of the charges, the Court conducted numerous pretrial hearings to check on the status of the case, and to ensure that the parties were still prepared to go to trial on the scheduled date of March 26, 2018. Over the course of these hearings, the Court explained the procedures that would be employed at Defendants' trial. The Court instructed the parties that it would be utilizing a new method to present electronic evidence to the jury during deliberations. To help jurors during deliberations, the Court announced that it would be using the Jury Evidence Recording System (“JERS”) at Defendants' trial. While other Courts in this District have used JERS for trials, this would be the first time it was set to be utilized at the Wichita Courthouse. The Court also discussed the jury selection procedure it would use in this trial (which is the same procedure the Court has always used), including the selection and designation of alternate jurors. The parties did not formally object to any of these procedures.

         Defendants' trial began on March 26, 2018. After hearing several weeks of evidence, the case was ready for submission to the jury at approximately 3:00 p.m. on April 17, 2018. At that time, the Court announced the names of the alternate jurors. As explained in detail below, Defendants objected to the Court's dismissal of one of the alternates (J.B.), because they had been operating under the belief that J.B. was a juror, not an alternate. The Court acknowledged that both parties believed J.B. was a member of the jury, but overruled Defendants' objection. The 12 jurors designated by the Court returned to the jury room to begin deliberations, and J.B. was excused as an alternate.

         Shortly before 5:00, the jury called the Court's law clerk with a question. The law clerk relayed the question to the Court. The parties were notified that the jury had a question, and a hearing was conducted on the record. Because the jury had not submitted a written question, the clerk was asked to explain what the jury had asked during the phone call. He explained that the jury had essentially asked how they could tell what dates the audio clips they were listening to on JERS were recorded, since they did not have access to the transcripts anymore.

         The Government argued that the jurors should be supplied with dates that correspond with the audio exhibits. Defense counsel asserted that the jury was now “asking for additional factual information” that was not in evidence, and objected to the “record being reopened” to supplement it with the dates of the audio recordings.[2] Counsel argued: “[i]t's information that the Government could have included in the evidence and did not. And because they're asking for additional factual information that would help them make sense and sort through the evidence, we would object to basically the record being reopened and that being provided to them.”[3] The Government countered that, during the trial, it had elicited the specific dates tied to each audio exhibit.[4]

         It was then pointed out that many of the audio recordings the jurors were listening to included the dates of the recordings in the exhibit description on JERS. Meaning, the jurors already had access to most of the dates, they just had not yet noticed it. The Court overruled Defendants' objection, and provided the jury with a written instruction, which stated:

Some of your audio files have date indications in their JERS name. To the extent that they do not, we cannot provide any additional information at this stage.

         The written instruction was delivered to the jury around 5:20 p.m., and shortly thereafter the jurors were released for the evening.

         The following day, on April 18, the jury resumed deliberations and reached the verdicts before 1:30 p.m. The jury found Defendants guilty of one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and one count of civil rights conspiracy. In addition, Defendant Wright was convicted of one count of lying to the FBI to obstruct its investigation into this matter.[5]

         On May 2, 2018, Defendants filed the present motion for new trial.

         II. Legal Standard

         Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) states that, “[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” “A motion for a new trial is not regarded with favor and is only issued with great caution.”[6] The decision whether to grant a motion for new trial is within the sound discretion of the district court.[7]

         III. Discussion

         Defendants raise two arguments. First, Defendants argue that the interest of justice requires a new trial because the jury was presented with essential facts in the exhibit descriptions on JERS, that were not in evidence, but affected the jury's verdict. Second, Defendants argue that a new trial is necessary because the Court's designation of the alternate jurors violated Rule 24 and its own pronounced procedure relied on by all parties. The Court will address each argument in turn.

         A. Defendants' Challenges to the JERS System

         Defendants' first argument in favor of a new trial attacks the JERS system utilized by the Court during jury deliberations. Defendants argue that the JERS exhibit descriptions infected the jury deliberations on facts essential to the jury's verdict. According to Defendants, the descriptions on JERS: (1) included non-record dates of certain audio clips; and (2) tied certain handwritten documents to Stein when his handwriting had never been identified by a witness. Additionally, Defendants assert that the JERS document itself called Defendants “terrorists” despite the fact that the use of that term at trial had been tightly prescribed following limine motions. Defendants contend that the jurors' exposure to extraneous information requires a new trial.

         “The Tenth Circuit has developed two competing standards for determining the impact of exposure to extraneous material on a jury.”[8] “Under the first approach, a new trial is warranted when the aggrieved party shows that there is the slightest possibility that the exposure affected the verdict.”[9] But under the second standard, a court will presume prejudice and grant a new trial unless the Government can show that the exposure was harmless.[10] The difference between these conflicting approaches primarily lies in assignment of the burden of proof. The Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly declined to resolve this conflict in cases where its resolution would make no difference in the outcome.”[11]

         This case does not present the opportunity to resolve the conflict. Under either standard, the jury's exposure to extraneous information during deliberation was harmless, and a new trial is not required.[12] To assess whether exposure to extraneous information was harmless, the Court must “review[] the entire record, analyz[e] the substance of the extrinsic evidence, and compar[e] it to that information of which the jurors were properly aware.”[13] The trial judge is uniquely qualified to assess the prejudicial effect of extraneous information, since the trial judge has the advantages of close observation of the jurors and the evidence, as well as an intimate familiarity with the issues at trial.[14]

         1. Overview and facts relating to JERS

         JERS is a system used to present electronic evidence to the jury; it allows deliberating jurors to view the admitted evidence electronically on a large, flat screen in the deliberation room.[15]There are two components to JERS: (1) the JERS application software, which is a program installed on the District of Kansas server; and (2) the JERS workstation, which is a large, touch- screen television that is brought into the jury room once they are ready to begin deliberating.[16] As a result, there are two distinct interfaces for two types of end users. There is a “private, ” form-based interface that is only accessible by District of Kansas personnel. This interface, known as the “courtroom client, ” allows the Court to create a “trial” on JERS, and to upload, review, manage, and eventually release the parties' exhibits to be viewed by the jury during deliberations.

         When the Court “releases” the exhibits, they will be accessible on the JERS workstation. The JERS workstation is essentially a large, touch-screen television in the jury room that contains a “public, ” menu-driven interface that is only accessible by the jurors.[17] This interface, known as the “JuryViewer client” performs just a single function. The admitted exhibits for each party are displayed in a list, and the jurors can select an exhibit and it will be displayed on the screen. In the case of audio and video exhibits, the recording will be played on the screen and through the speakers.

         In this case, counsel was directed to read the JERS instructions on the District of Kansas website prior to trial. The instructions specified that the parties must submit to the Court a data storage device, such as a USB, DVD, or CD, containing all of their electronic exhibits by a certain deadline. Each file/exhibit must be titled using the following naming convention:

• <exhibit number>-<exhibit part><exhibit description>.<file extension>.

         For example:

• 12010 Financial Statement.pdf
• 2-aStore Surveillance Footage.wmv
• 2-bPhone Call Recording.mp3
• 201-aStore Surveillance Footage 2.mpg.

         The JERS instructions then specify, in bold, that “[a]ll exhibits shall be described using neutral and non-adversarial terms.”

         In accordance with these instructions, the parties submitted their exhibits on a data storage device prior to trial. After the Court received the data storage devices, the files were uploaded onto JERS. To do so, the courtroom deputy created a new “trial” on JERS on the courtroom client, by entering the case number, courtroom where the trial was assigned, trial start date, and by entering a description for the case.[18] At this point, when the exhibits were uploaded onto JERS, they were only accessible by the Court on the courtroom client. This allows the Court to preview the exhibits to ensure that audio and video files could be seen and/or heard, electronic copies of documents were readable, etc.

         The parties were also instructed to submit formal exhibit lists prior to trial. However, it has since become clear that the exhibit descriptions on the exhibits lists did not match the descriptions provided on the JERS exhibits. For example, the Government played 60 audio clips from Government's Exhibit 15 during trial. On the Government's exhibit list filed with the Court, the description for Exhibit 15 provides: “1D16, audio recording.”[19] But the Exhibit's description on JERS, as seen by the jury, reads: “Consensual recording between Dan Day, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein and Curtis Allen on 882016.”[20]

         Due to the nature of the conspiracy charges, many of the Government's exhibits were audio recordings of conversations between an FBI confidential human source and Defendants. The FBI completed verified transcripts of these conversations. When the Government played audio clips during trial, the corresponding FBI transcript displayed on screens in the jury box, thus allowing the jurors to read along with the audio clips as it was being played.[21]

         At the close of evidence, the Court's law clerk met with the parties to go through their exhibit lists exhibit-by-exhibit to ensure that there was no disagreement about the exhibits that were admitted into evidence. After the parties all agreed that the Court's record of which exhibits were admitted was true and correct, the law clerk prepared the JERS exhibits to be released to the jury. On the courtroom client, the law clerk checked the “release” box next to each exhibit that had been admitted during trial. When the jury was ready to begin deliberating, the JERS workstation was brought into the jury room. At that point, the law clerk “released” the exhibits on the courtroom client, so the exhibits were accessible on the JERS workstation and the JuryViewer client.

         Shortly after the jury began deliberating, the jury called the Court's law clerk to ask how they could view the dates of the audio clips on JERS, since they were not provided with the transcripts during deliberations. Over Defendants' objection, the Court instructed the jury that: “[s]ome of your audio files have date indications in their JERS name.” Defendants then requested that the Court provide a list of the JERS exhibit descriptions to the parties, so they could understand what the jury was able to see on the JERS workstation. On the JERS courtroom client, the Court generated an automated report with the JERS exhibits and the corresponding descriptions and provided that report to the parties.[22]

         2. The JERS descriptions do not warrant a new trial

         Before the Court addresses the substance of Defendants' current arguments, it first addresses whether Defendants have timely presented their JERS objections. The Court concludes that Defendants' objection to the descriptions of the Government's exhibits in JERS was untimely.[23] The Government has stated that “[c]omplete copies of all of these electronic exhibits, including their file names, were provided to the defense prior to trial.”[24] The Government provided counsel for each defendant with an exact copy of the exhibits provided to the Court to be loaded into JERS on a flash drive on March 15, 2018. Defendants do not dispute that defense counsel was provided with a flashdrive containing the Government's exhibits.[25] Yet, Defendants did not object to the JERS file names until after the case had been submitted to the jury.

         Regardless, as addressed below, the Court has assessed the “possibility of prejudice” to Defendants by “reviewing the entire record, analyzing the substance of the extrinsic evidence, and comparing it to that information of which the jurors were properly aware.”[26] In so doing, the Court concludes that the descriptions of the Government's exhibits in JERS were not prejudicial and they were consistent with the testimony that was elicited during trial regarding the exhibits. The Court will address each challenged category-descriptions with dates, descriptions of physical exhibits, and the trial description-below.

         a. JERS exhibit descriptions containing dates

         Of the three categories of allegedly impermissible descriptions, the Court begins by addressing the JERS exhibits that contained dates in the descriptions. Defendants argue that the JERS list included dates for some exhibit recordings, such as Government's Exhibit 15, even though no sponsoring witness testified as to the date for that recording or the clips from that recording. Because this information was provided to the jury during deliberations by way of the JERS exhibit list without having been admitted into evidence, Defendants argue, the information is necessarily extrinsic or extraneous information.

         According to Defendants, the Court's instruction to the jury during deliberations that it may consider the dates of recordings as indicated next to their respective JERS exhibit description requires that a new trial be granted because there is more than a slight possibility that the jury's consideration of the unadmitted factual information, which was essential to a guilty verdict as to each offense, affected the verdicts.

         At the outset, the Court presumes the jurors read the JERS descriptions as the Court directed them to. But even so, the record shows that Defendants were not prejudiced. Contrary to Defendants' assertions, almost none of the JERS exhibits of audio clips contained “essential facts not in evidence.” All but one of the descriptions included dates that were corroborated by supporting testimony. And, regarding the exhibit that did technically contain extraneous information-based on the record, that information was harmless.

         Although the only example provided by Defendants was Exhibit 15, the Court has identified all of the Government Exhibits of audio and/or visual recordings in which the corresponding JERS description contained the dates of the recordings. After addressing Exhibit 15, the Court will address each of the additional exhibits in turn.

          i. Government's Exhibit 15

         Defendants identify a single exhibit-Government's Exhibit 15-as an example of an exhibit that had an improper description in JERS. Exhibit 15 was a series of 60 clips from an audio recording made by Dan Day during a meeting with Allen, Stein, and Wright on August 8, 2016. The Exhibit's description on JERS, as seen by the jury, reads: “Consensual recording between Dan Day, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein and Curtis Allen on 882016.”

         The Court admitted Exhibit 15 into evidence in the morning on March 29, 2018. That afternoon marked the first time a clip from Exhibit 15 was played. The Government began by asking Dan Day about the first meeting that Day attended at G&G Home Center in Liberal, Kansas.[27] The Government then asked Day about the second time he went to G&G. Day testified that Allen, Stein, and Wright were all present at the second meeting he attended at G&G, and that the group used a computer in the office to identify potential targets using GoogleEarth during that meeting. According to Day's testimony, Defendants would pull up targets in Garden City, such as the Somalian mosque, and the apartment building, and they would drop a pin and type “cockroach”-a derogatory term used by Defendants to describe Muslims. The Government then played Exhibit 15z to the jury, as evidence of Defendants using GoogleEarth to drop “cockroach pins” on potential targets. During this conversation, the Government did not elicit testimony from Dan Day that this meeting occurred on August 8, 2016.

         However, on April 3rd, Allen's counsel began questioning Dan Day about “planning meetings” that were only attended by Day, Allen, Stein, and Wright. Counsel asked specifically about a meeting at G&G on August 8th of 2016. Day testified that the date of August 8th “sounds correct.” Later, Allen's counsel asked if Day remembered a meeting at G&G with Patrick Slattery. Day answered affirmatively. Defense counsel then clarified that “[t]he meeting after that is the one I want to talk about.” When Day indicated that he could not remember what was said at that meeting, Allen's counsel stated, in front of the jury: “I'm going to play 942a, ” and that “these are clips from the same conversation that the Government has already introduced a number of clips from.”

         The Government objected, and due to proximity to the lunch hour, the jury was dismissed for their lunch recess. Over the lunch hour, Defense Exhibit 942 was admitted into evidence. Although Allen's counsel did not play any clips from Exhibit 942 to the jury, it was admitted into evidence and presented to the jury during deliberations on JERS. Defense Exhibit 942 was saved on JERS as “1D162016-08-08.”

         Thus, it does not appear that the description on JERS for Government's Exhibit 15 provided the jurors with any extraneous or intrinsic information. Government's Exhibit 15 was identified as an audio recording of the second meeting at G&G. The description on JERS was: “[c]onsensual recording between Dan Day, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein and Curtis Allen on 882016.” Dan Day, when questioned by Allen's counsel about the second meeting at G&G, stated that August 8th, 2016 “sound[ed] correct” as the date that meeting occurred.

         Even if Day's testimony was not sufficient to tie Exhibit 15 to August 8th, the description on JERS was harmless. Allen's counsel introduced into evidence five clips from the August 8th meeting. The description on JERS for these clips also included the Dated: “1D162016-08-08.” Some of these clips were duplicates of clips introduced by the Government in the 15-series. Defendants cannot argue that they were prejudiced by the Government's description on JERS which included the date of the recordings when defense counsel's own clips from that same conversation also included the same date-August 8, 2016. Accordingly, Defendants were not prejudiced by the description for the Government's Exhibit 15 in JERS.

         ii. Government's Exhibit 17

         The Court now turns to the exhibits that the Court has independently identified. First, the description on JERS for Government's Exhibit 17 did not contain extraneous information. The description provided: “[c]onsensual recording intercepted 9182016 between Dan Day Curtis Allen Gavin Wright Patrick Stein.” On April 2, 2018, the Government asked Dan Day about a meeting at G&G on September 11, 2016. Day testified that he met with Defendants at G&G on September 11, but he was unable to record at that meeting. Day testified about the September 11 meeting for about ten minutes. Then, the Government asked him: “[n]ow, about a week after this meeting you just described, did you go to another meeting at a Subway truck stop in Sublette, Kansas?” Day testified that he did, and that it was recorded. The Government then played Exhibit 17a for the jury. Thus, while Dan Day did not technically testify that the meeting was on September 11, “about a week later” is indirect evidence that the meeting occurred on September 18. Thus, the description on JERS did not contain extraneous information.

         iii. Government Exhibits 18, 19, 21, and 49

         Next, the Court turns to the description on JERS for Government's Exhibits 18, 19, 21, and 49. After reviewing the record, none of these exhibits contained extraneous information; although the evidence tying Exhibit 18 to September 25, 2016 was indirect. On April 4, 2018, FBI Under Cover Employee (“UCE”) “Brian” testified that he and other UCEs recorded three meetings in which they met in person with Stein. These recordings were introduced into evidence as Government's Exhibits 18, 19, 21, and 49. For some unknown reason, Exhibit 18 was an audio recording of the first meeting, but Exhibit 21 was an audio recording of the second meeting, while Exhibit 19 was an audio recording of the third meeting. Exhibit 49 was an audio and video recording of the second meeting.

         On JERS, the description for Exhibit 18 provided: “[c]onsensual monitoring of [five UCEs] Dan Day Patrick Stein on 09252016.” The description for Exhibit 21 provided: “[c]onsensual audio recording on 10122016 between Patrick Stein [and five UCEs].” The description for Exhibit 49 provided: “[c]onsensual Video recording on 10122016 between Patrick Stein [and five UCEs].” And the description for Exhibit 19 provided: “[c]onsensual audio recording on 10142016 between Patrick Stein [and five UCEs].”

         During trial, on April 4, 2018, UCE Brian testified that he recorded three meetings in which he met with Stein in person. Counsel for the Government asked UCE Brian if his first meeting with Stein occurred on September 25, 2016. UCE Brian could not recall the exact date, but testified that the first meeting took place in September of 2016. In addition to Stein, Dan Day was also present at this meeting. An audio recording of the first meeting was introduced as Government's Exhibit 18.

         The next day of trial, UCE Brian testified that he scheduled a second in-person meeting with Stein while communicating via a web-based messaging application. UCE Brian testified that on October 11, 2016, he arranged to meet with Stein at 5:00 p.m. on October 12th. UCE Brian briefly explained what happened at the October 12 meeting. The Government then played clips from Exhibit 21 and 49 to corroborate UCE Brian's testimony regarding that meeting.

         After the lunch recess, UCE Brian was asked about a meeting that he had with Stein on October 14, 2016. UCE Brian testified that Stein delivered bags of fertilizer to the UCEs at a McDonald's, and that the meeting was recorded. The Government then played Exhibit 19-the audio recording of the meeting-for the jury.

         In comparing the JERS description to the information of which the jurors were properly aware, the Court concludes that the descriptions for Exhibits 19, 21, and 49 did not contain extraneous information. The jurors were made aware through UCE Brian's testimony that Exhibit 21 was an audio recording of a meeting that took place on October 12, 2016, and that Exhibit 49 was an audio and video recording of part of that same meeting. Likewise, the jurors were made aware through UCE Brian's testimony that Exhibit 19 was a recording of a meeting that took place on October 14, 2016. In other words, a sponsoring witness testified as to the date for the clips made for Exhibits 19, 21, and 49.

         Although UCE Brian could not recall the exact date of the first meeting, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the first meeting took place on September 25. First, UCE Brian testified that the first meeting took place in September of 2016. UCE Brian then testified that he communicated with Stein over a web-based application on September 27, sometime “after” his first in-person meeting with Stein.[28] Second, Dan Day testified about his knowledge of the meeting with the UCEs during trial on April 4, 2018. When asked whether a meeting was set up on September 25, 2016, for Stein to meet with the UCEs, Day testified that “sounds like the right date.” Shortly thereafter, Day was asked: “on September 25th when you were driving out to the meeting place, you actually got lost?” Day answered: “I made a wrong turn, yes.” Thus, the jury was presented with evidence that the first meeting between Stein and the UCEs took place on September 25, 2016. Accordingly, the inclusion of “09252016” in the JERS description for Exhibit 18 was not extraneous.

         iv. Government's Exhibit 22

         On JERS, the description for Government's Exhibit 22 provided: “[c]onsensual monitoring of Dan Day Patrick Stein Curtis Allen Trish Burch Nathan Spooner Daniel Reeves on 07092016.” On March 29 and on April 3, 2018, Dan Day testified about a meeting at Trish Burch's house, attended by Day, Allen, Stein, Trish Burch, and Daniel Reever. On April 3, Day testified that this meeting took place on July 9, 2016. Accordingly, the JERS description which included “07092016” did not contain extraneous information, and regardless, was harmless.

         v. Government's Exhibit 24

         Next, the description on JERS for Government's Exhibit 24 did not contain extraneous information. The JERS description for Exhibit 24 provided: “[c]onsensual monitoring of Dan Day, Gavin Wright, Patrick Slattery and Curtis Allen on 07312016.” As explained in more detail above, Dan Day was asked extensively about his meetings with Defendants at G&G Homes. Day testified that the first meeting was attended by Allen, Wright, and an individual named Patrick Slattery, but Stein was not present, and no planning occurred. Although Day was not asked about the date of the first meeting, the jury heard subsequent testimony regarding this date. On April 11, 2018, Wright's counsel asked Special Agent Amy Kuhn about Defendant's Exhibit 1127. Agent Kuhn testified that Exhibit 1127 was the first six pages of the transcript the FBI prepared for the meeting at G&G on July 31, 2016. The JERS description for Defendant's Exhibit 1127 provides: “FBI Verified Transcript 1D15 re 7-31-2016 Meeting at G & G Homes.pdf.”

         Thus, the Government's description on JERS for Exhibit 24, which contained the numerals “07312016” did not contain any extraneous information. Moreover, Defendants have not been prejudiced because Defendant's Exhibit 1127, a transcript from the same meeting, also contained the date “7-31-2016.”

         vi. Government's Exhibits 127 and 130

         Next, the description on JERS for Government's Exhibits 127 and 130 did not contain extraneous information. The description for Exhibit 127 provided: “[c]onsensual monitoring of Dan Day 09022016.” And the description for Exhibit 130 provided: “[c]onsensual monitoring of Dan Day 09012016.” On March 29, 2018, the Government asked Dan Day about a meeting on September 2, 2016 at G&G. Dan Day testified that he recorded that meeting, and the Government proceeded to play Exhibit 127-the recording he made.

         During trial, on April 2, 2018, Day was questioned about how he prepared for the September 2 meeting at G&G. Specifically, Day testified that he recorded a phone call with Stein the “day before this meeting at G&G.” The Government then introduced Exhibit 130, which was a recording of his phone call with Stein while he was at the FBI office in Garden City. In other words, Day testified that Exhibit 130 was recorded one day prior to September 2-meaning it was recorded on September 1. Moreover, on April 10, a duplicate recording was introduced into evidence by Defendant Allen as Defendant's Exhibit 944. The description provided by Allen on JERS for Exhibit 944 provided: “1D602016-09-01.”

         Accordingly, the dates contained on JERS for Government's Exhibits 127 and 130 were not extraneous information. And the description for Defendant Allen's Exhibit 944 contained the same date in the description on JERS, so Defendants would not have been prejudiced by Government's Exhibit 130 regardless.

         vii. Government's Exhibits 287 and 288

         Next, the description on JERS for Government's Exhibits 287 and 288 did not contain extraneous information. The descriptions for Exhibits 287 and 288 both contained “20161011” on JERS. During trial, there was evidence and testimony that Defendant Allen was arrested on October 11, 2016. On April 4, 2018, the Government asked Day about phone calls he had with Wright “shortly after Curtis Allen's arrest.” Day remembered those phone calls, and the recordings were introduced as Government's Exhibits 287 and 288. On April 5, Wright's counsel introduced Defendant's Exhibits 1107 and 1108, which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.