throbber
Case 7:15-cr-00661-NSR Document 30 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`-against-
`
`RAHEEM JONES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 15 Cr. 661 (NSR)
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`NELSONS. ROMAN, United States District Judge
`
`Defendant Raheem Jones ("Defendant" or "Jones") has been charged with criminal
`
`conduct under two separate indictments, Indictment No. 15 Cr. 661 (NSR) (the "present
`
`Indictment") and Indictment No. 17 Cr. 644 (NSR) (the "RICO Indictment"). Now before the
`
`Comt is the Government's application for a comt order consolidating these cases and permitting
`
`a joint trial. Defendant not only fails to oppose the motion, but affirmatively joins in the
`
`application. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED on consent.
`
`Under the present Indictment, Defendant is charged as a felon in possession of a firearm
`
`in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l) following the recovery ofa handgun in a backpack
`
`possessed by the Defendant. (Comp!., ECF No. 1.) The criminal charges stem from an incident
`
`which occurred on September 15, 2015, wherein law enforcement officers responded to a radio
`
`run of shots fired in the vicinity of Clinton Avenue in New Rochelle, New York. (Id.~ 3a.)
`
`Officers were informed that an individual in a black BMW SUV fired shots into another car. (Id.
`
`~ 3b.) An eyewitness purportedly described the shooter as a black man with "a decent amount of
`
`hair." (Id.) Shortly after the shooting, officers located a vehicle matching the description of the
`
`BMW SUV driving away from the vicinity of the shooting. (Id.~ 3d.) Following a motor
`
`vehicle and foot chase, Jones was apprehended, and a backpack containing a handgun was
`
`

`

`Case 7:15-cr-00661-NSR Document 30 Filed 11/15/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`recovered.
`
`Under the subsequent RICO Indictment, Jones and seven other co-defendants are charged
`
`with paiticipating in a racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and the use of
`
`firearms in relation to the racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). It is alleged that from
`
`or about 2008 through 2017, Jones, along with his co-conspirators, participated in a series of
`
`criminal activities, including murder, assault, robbery, and narcotics trafficking as a member of
`
`the "Goonies" or Goon Squad. In furtherance of these crimes, it is alleged that Jones possessed,
`
`brandished, and discharged firearms.
`
`The Government seeks a joint trial on the basis that the facts and evidence to be presented
`
`in both cases are inextricably intertwined. The Government asse1ts it will rely on the same
`
`evidence it intends to proffer under the present Indictment to prove key elements of the crimes
`
`charged in the RICO Indictment. In particular, the Government asserts that Jones's criminal
`
`conduct charged in the present Indictment was committed in fu1therance of the racketeering
`
`conspiracy charged in the RICO Indictment.
`
`Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "[t]he court may order
`
`that separate cases be tried together as though brought in a single indictment or information if all
`
`offenses and all defendants could have been joined in a single indictment or information." Fed.
`
`R. Crim. P. 13. Thus, the decision to order two indictments be tried together is left to the sound
`
`discretion of the comt. See United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 635 (2d Cir.),
`
`cert. denied, 329 U.S. 742 (1946). In exercising such discretion, however, the court must be
`
`mindful of the constraints created by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See
`
`United States v. Westcom, No. 13-CR-93, 2014 WL 12633537, at *3 (D. Vt. Apr. 23, 2014)
`
`(citing USA v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 428-29 (2d Cir. 1978)).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:15-cr-00661-NSR Document 30 Filed 11/15/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`Rule 8(b) provides, in relevant part, that an indictment may charge two or more
`
`defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same
`
`series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or set of offenses. Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b).
`
`Fmther, joinder of offenses under the Rule 8(b) is permissible if the offenses are of the same or
`
`similar character such that evidence of the separate crimes would be admissible at the separate
`
`trials. Halper, 590 F.2d at 431. In such cases, the defendant is not unfairly prejudiced by the joint
`
`trial of the offenses. Id.
`
`In the instant matters, not only are the offenses related but evidence from the present
`
`Indictment is relevant to, and substantially supports the charges alleged in the RICO Indictment.
`
`Additionally, the same evidence would be used to prove the crimes charged under the present
`
`Indictment and portions of the RICO Indictment. Taking into consideration judicial efficiency
`
`and the minimal risk of prejudice to the Defendant, the Government's application for a joint trial
`
`is granted.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Government's motion for a comt order directing that
`
`Indictment No. 15 Cr. 661 and Indictment 17 Cr. 644 be jointly tried is GRANTED. The Clerk
`
`of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the final pre-trial conference scheduled on
`
`December I, 2017 and adjourn sine die the trial scheduled to commence December 11, 2017.
`
`The Clerk of the Court is also respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 28. This
`
`constitutes the Comt's Opinion and Order.
`
`Dated: November_!_$_, 2017
`White Plains, New York
`
`SO ORDERED:
`
`~.-NELSON S. ROMAN
`
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket