Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was indicted for conspiring with others to murder Ian Francis, for knowingly and intentionally causing the death of Francis, (3) knowingly and intentionally causing the death of Francis with the intent to prevent Francis from communicating with a law enforcement officer or judge, conspiring to murder Charles Jernigan to prevent the attendance of Jernigan in an official proceeding, unlawfully possessed a firearm in or affecting commerce. D was found guilty or the murder of Francis and conspiring to murder Jernigan as well as some weapons possession charges. D filed a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or, in the alternative, a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Of interest to the Park 13th casebook is Lucien's Prior Consistent Statements - Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)] D argues that the Court erred in admitting prior consistent statements of government witnesses. D challenges a recorded statement in which Lucien told his cellmate, 'Big Mack. He want CJ gone.' Unbeknownst to Lucien when he made the statement, his cellmate was cooperating with the government and wearing a government-supplied recording device. D argues that because Lucien hated D, he attempted to pin blame on D for the murder of Francis and the plan to murder Jernigan. D argues, Lucien's statement implicating D in planning Jernigan's murder was not made prior to the existence of the improper influence or motive because, at least since Francis's murder, Lucien 'had been attempting to place the blame for his misdeeds on D' and the statement 'was of a piece with other similar statements [Lucien] had made to just about anyone who would listen to him.'
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co