United States v. Khalil Stafford

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 19-3833
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KHALIL STAFFORD, aka Stod,
aka Homicide,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(District Court No. 2-14-cr-00220-011)
District Judge: Honorable Madeline C. Arleo
Argued on April 21, 2021
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, Circuit Judges, and NOREIKA,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: December 20, 2021)
John J. McMahon (Argued)
80 Main Street
Suite 580
West Orange, NJ 07052
Counsel for Appellant
Mark E. Coyne
Rachael A. Honig
*
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika, United States District Judge for the District of
Delaware, sitting by designation.
Richard J. Ramsay (Argued)
970 Broad Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION**
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Following an acquittal in New Jersey state court and a hung jury in an earlier federal
trial, Khalil Stafford was convicted in the District of New Jersey of various drug and
racketeering charges stemming from his activities in the Grape Street Crips. Stafford
appeals to us, raising eight issues with his prosecution and conviction. We agreed to hear
argument on two: (1) whether the District Court abused its discretion by excusing three
jurors on the eve of deliberations, and (2) whether it erred in the instructions it gave for
murder, a part of Stafford’s racketeering convictions. We conclude that neither of these
issues, nor any of the other six, justify disturbing his conviction. Thus we affirm.
I. Background
Khalil Stafford is a longtime member of the Newark, New Jersey chapter of the
Grape Street Crips. In June 2010, he was attending a cookout when a shootout among
members of the Crips erupted. When one of the gang members ran into a neighboring
**
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
home, innocent women and children sitting on the front porch were caught in the crossfire.
One of the women, Hope Williams, was shot and killed.
The facts of the shootout are highly disputed. On Stafford’s telling, he caught wind
of a conflict between Tawan Williams’ brother, Iyan Williams, and Aaron Terrell. 1 Iyan
allegedly blamed Terrell for his brother’s death, in whose memory the cookout was being
held. When Terrell arrived at the cookout, Iyan, who appeared agitated and under the
influence of drugs, became increasingly upset, and his mother encouraged him to avenge
his brother. Stafford attempted to act as a peacemaker, but to no avail. Iyan opened fire at
Terrell, which instigated the shootout. Stafford denies ever holding or shooting a gun.
In contrast, the Government claims that Stafford and Iyan were disputing an unpaid
drug debt. When Stafford requested payment, Iyan refused and brandished his gun.
Stafford interpreted this rebuff from a more junior Crips member as a sign of disrespect.
He left the cookout and met up with Terrell and other Crips. The group obtained three
guns and returned to confront Iyan. When they arrived back at the cookout, they opened
fire on Iyan and his ally, Mustafa Stribling, triggering the shootout.
Stafford, Terrell, and others were prosecuted for the murder of Hope in New Jersey
state court but were acquitted in April 2013. Over two years later, Stafford and several co-
defendants were indicted on various drug-related and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) charges. They did not initially relate to Hope’s murder; rather,
1
Iyan Williams and Tawan Williams are not related to Hope Williams. We refer to these
persons by their first names for clarity.
3
Stafford was implicated in a broader investigation into the Grape Street Crips and its
associates for drug trafficking and violence. In particular, the Government pointed to
evidence that Stafford sold heroin to a confidential informant with labels that matched the
heroin sold by Hanee Cureton, the operator of a large drug mill in Newark, New Jersey.
Stafford maintains that his trafficking in drugs was an exclusively private endeavor in
support of his own drug habit rather than a gang-run operation and claims that the packages
he sold to the informant contained party tickets, not heroin.
The first federal trial ended in a mistrial after a hung jury. The Government then
sought to sever the defendants into two groups: Corey Hamlet, Tony Phillips, and Ahmad
Manley were classified as “violent” drug offenders who were tried first and found guilty
in July 2018. Stafford and Cureton, the ostensibly “non-violent” drug-offenders, were
retried, now on the seventh superseding indictment. For the first time, the Government
added Hope’s murder as a predicate RICO offense, as well as a separate Violent Crimes in
Aid of Racketeering Act (“VICAR”) count, against Stafford. The Government claims it
added these counts after Terrell became a cooperating witness and provided critical
evidence, later testifying that Stafford started shooting first after they saw Stribling
reaching for his gun. Stafford moved to dismiss the new indictment on various grounds
that included vindictive prosecution, but his motion was denied except with respect to one
firearms charge that the Government conceded was beyond the statute of limitations.
Cureton pled guilty and Stafford proceeded to trial, where he testified in his defense.
4
Prior to the prosecution’s rebuttal summation, a deputy marshal reported a
conversation he overheard while driving a van containing some of the jurors. The Judge
promptly questioned the marshal and jurors. The marshal stated he heard a woman discuss
her sister’s experience as a juror on a trial in which the jury wrongly found the individual
guilty. Another juror purportedly responded with an affirmation. When questioned,
however, the jurors primarily recalled a conversation about how the justice system in the
United States differs from the justice system in Spain. The Government moved to exclude
jurors 3, 5, and 10 on the grounds that they were discussing the consequences of wrongly
finding a defendant guilty and because they were being evasive with the Judge during
questioning. Stafford countered that the Government was attempting to strike an African-
American woman who seemed sympathetic to Stafford’s theory of the case. The Judge
dismissed jurors 3, 5, and 10 and replaced them with alternates.
Stafford moved for a mistrial based on the allegedly improper replacement of the
three jurors, as well as that Terrell referred to Stafford as his alias—“Homicide”—on the
stand; both motions were denied. The jury ultimately found Stafford guilty of RICO (count
1), specifying two predicate acts: the murder of Hope and conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with the intent to distribute heroin in quantities larger than one kilogram. They
also found him guilty of VICAR based on the murder (count 2), conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin (count 3), and
distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin (count 4). Stafford then
unsuccessfully moved for judgments of acquittal for insufficiency of evidence. At the same
5
time, the District Court also rejected Stafford’s argument that his prosecution put him in
double jeopardy. He appeals to us.
II. Discussion2
We address each of Stafford’s eight issues in turn.
A. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Replacing Three Jurors
on the Eve of Deliberations.
Stafford fi rst takes issue with the District Court’s decision to replace jurors 3, 5,
and 10 with alternate jurors on the eve of deliberations. We review the removal of jurors
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Penn, 870 F.3d 164, 169 (3d Cir. 2017).
A trial court may use alternate jurors to “replace any jurors who are unable to
perform or who are disqualified from performing their duties.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(c). We
give great deference to those decisions. The rule does not impose any particular procedures
on the court. See Penn, 870 F.3d at 169. Instead, we have upheld its decision to replace
jurors where it had “clearly articulated its reasoning on the record.” Id. at 170. And
further, we have cited to the Seventh Circuit for the proposition that we “will not overturn
the trial court’s decision to dismiss a juror pursuant to Rule 24(c) unless no legitimate basis
for the court’s decision can be found in the record.” Id. at 169 (quoting United States v.
Pineda, 743 F.3d 213, 217 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original)).
Here, the District Court engaged in detailed, on-the-record questioning of jurors
about the conversation the marshal overheard in the van. Stafford contends that this
2
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
6
questioning casts doubt on the marshal’s account of the conversation and shows that the
actual conversation was permissible. This misses the point. Even if the conversation in
the van were completely benign, the District Court had the discretion to remove jurors that
it found were evasive during questioning, and that reasoning alone, if supported by the
record, is enough for us to affirm its decision on appellate review. The Supreme Court,
dealing with a case of contempt against a juror for making false statements in voir dire, has
described a juror whose “answers to [the court’s] questions are willfully evasive or
knowingly untrue . . . [as] a juror in name only. His relation to the court and to the parties
is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.” Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1,
11 (1933); see also United States v. Thornton, 1 F.3d 149, 154 (3d Cir. 1993) (reinforcing
“the district court’s wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations
underlying the removal of a juror” in the context of the court observing that a juror
“protested too much and I just don’t believe her”); cf. United States v. Augustin, 661 F.3d
1105, 1134 (11th Cir. 2011).
Because the District Court supported its reasoning with specific and plausible
evidence in the record, we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in finding these
jurors were evasive. After questioning them, the Court took a moment to “go through the
evasiveness on the record[,] . . . begin[ning] with [juror] number three.” App. at 3166. It
noted that after it asked whether “someone relate[ed] the story of an experience of another
family or friend about their service in a criminal case,” Juror 3 responded simply by asking
“Someone?” Id. When asked whether she was a participant in the conversation, Juror 3
7
responded “No,” but then said she was “trying to remember,” followed by she was “in the
middle.” Id. at 3166–67. The Court then contrasted Juror 3’s answers to the questions
with those of Juror 10, who relayed that Juror 3 actually did participate in this conversation
by stating “wow” in response to a story about someone being incorrectly found guilty. Id.
at 3168. This discrepancy was particularly notable, as Juror 10 “later admitted” that she
was the one who “began the conversation.” Id. at 3170.
This concession by Juror 10, however, was also far from forthcoming. The District
Court noted that she replied “I’m trying to think” several times in response to simple and
direct questions about the conversation in the van. Id. at 3170–71. It was not until she was
called back that she finally admitted she brought up the topic. Id. at 3172.
Stafford places special emphasis on the exclusion of Juror 5, who he claims
appeared to be receptive to his case. But the District Court had a plausible and neutral
reason to exclude Juror 5. It concluded that she was “not fully candid” in her responses,
noting that she hedged her answers several times with language like “I can’t say with
certainty.” Id. at 3168. And the Court noted that it “asked four times about a criminal trial,
a result, and there was really no answer. It was never a denial; it was, I’m not sure, I don’t
remember the details.” Id. at 3169. Only after substantially more questioning did Juror 5
finally concede that there was a conversation about a case in Spain. Id. at 3170. Moreover,
Stafford has not shown he has a right to retain Juror 5 in particular, especially given he
does not contend that the jury he ultimately received was partial or improperly excluded
8
some class of jurors.3 See Penn, 870 F.3d at 168 (citing United States v. Mendoza, 510
F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2007), for the proposition that “Mendoza is not entitled to any
Hispanics on the jury, nor by implication is he entitled to any one individual juror”); United
States v. Shiomos, 864 F.2d 16, 18–19 (3d Cir. 1988) (declining to find reversible error in
a jury sequestration order that affected the composition of the jury where the defendant
“has not shown that some class of jurors was improperly excluded . . . or that the panel
ultimately chosen was in any way not impartial”); Thornton, 1 F.3d at 154 (affirming the
District Court’s decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be
exchanging “smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction” with the defendant).
To be clear, we do not today conclude that Jurors 3, 5, and 10 were actually evasive,
nor do we imply that replacing these jurors was necessary or even the best decision. But,
as an appellate court, we are in a poor position to make that determination compared to
district court judges, who can carefully observe the responses of the jurors to questioning,
including their tone and body language. See Penn, 870 F.3d at 171 (citing United States v.
De Oleo, 697 F.3d 338, 342 (6th Cir. 2012), for the proposition that “district judges are in
the best position to view a juror’s demeanor and determine whether she is able to shoulder
3
To the extent that Stafford also hints at a possible constitutional argument related to this
juror because after her replacement, there “were only one or at most two African-
Americans left on the jury,” Stafford’s Br. at 26, we agree with the Government that this
argument is so cursory as to be forfeited. In any case, we have held that “there is no . . .
right” for a defendant to “maintain the racial composition of the jury as it was selected.”
Penn, 870 F.3d at 168–69.
9
the obligations of jury service”). Here, the District Court’s exercise of its discretion is
reasonable and permissible considering the record, and so we will not disturb its decision.
B. The District Court Did Not Plainly Err in Failing to Provide Additional
Instructions on the New Jersey Murder Predicate.
Stafford next objects that the jury was not instructed that, under New Jersey law,
murder is mitigated to manslaughter when it is “committed in the heat of passion resulting
from a reasonable provocation.” N.J.S.A. 2C:11–4(b)(2). His theory is that even if he shot
and killed Hope in the middle of a firefight, it was in the heat of passion and provoked by
others shooting at him.
The Government argues that Stafford’s objections to the jury instructions are waived
under the invited error doctrine because the instructions were jointly proposed. See United
States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 97 n.6 (3d Cir. 2008). We do not agree. The instructions
do not appear actually to have been proposed jointly. Rather, the Government submitted
the instructions to the Court (after providing a copy and having a “consultation with
defense counsel”), and the defense made some objections while failing to raise the specific
objection now before us. App. at 2212, 2780–2807. Under these circumstances, we will
not hold that Stafford invited the error he now asserts. Still, because he did not object to
the jury instructions on this ground before the District Court, we review only for plain
error. United States v. Carter, 401 F.2d 748, 750 (3d Cir. 1968). This means that if
Stafford proves the existence of an (1) error that was (2) plain or clear under current law
and (3) that prejudiced him (meaning it “affected the outcome of the district court
proceedings”), we may exercise our discretion to correct the error if it (4) “seriously
10
affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732–36 (1993) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see
also United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th 459, 465 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc).
We need not conclusively determine whether Stafford would be entitled to this jury
instruction because he did not request it, and we conclude the District Court did not plainly
err in failing to include the heat-of-passion instruction sua sponte. There is neither an on-
point case in our Circuit nor a strong consensus in the other Courts of Appeals that would
make plain that this instruction would be required. See, e.g., United States v. Forsyth, 594
F.2d 947, 952 (3d Cir. 1979) (concluding that it was not necessary to provide instructions
on lesser bribery charges in connection with a RICO predicate act); United States v.
Fowler, 535 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that a defendant facing a murder RICO
predicate was not entitled to a particular lesser included offense state law instruction); see
generally United States v. Cole, 567 F.3d 110, 117 (3d Cir. 2009) (setting out situations in
which we have found plain error). While we leave open the possibility that the specific
New Jersey heat-of-passion instruction relevant here may be distinguished from these
cases, the answer is certainly not plain or clear under existing law. And here, even if heat-
of-passion manslaughter is a plausible theory, it goes squarely against the primary theory
advocated by Stafford—that he was a non-violent peacekeeper, not a justifiably provoked
shooter. While defendants are generally free to argue inconsistent theories, it would not
be obvious to the District Court that a defendant arguing he did not hold a gun during the
shootout would also require a heat-of-passion instruction.
11
Indeed, even a New Jersey trial court, familiar with the intricacies of its murder
statute, would not be expected to issue sua sponte a heat-of-passion instruction in this
context. See State v. Robinson, 643 A.2d 591, 489–92 (N.J. 1994) (holding that the trial
court “does not . . . have the obligation on its own meticulously to sift through the entire
record in every murder trial to see if some combination of facts and inferences might
rationally sustain a manslaughter charge,” but instead need only include an instruction
“when the facts ‘clearly indicate’ the appropriateness of that charge” (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted)). This reinforces our conclusion that the District Court’s failure
to do so was not plain error.
C. Charging Stafford with RICO Murder Does Not Violate Double Jeopardy.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person may
be “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Stafford asserts
he was tried twice for the same offense because RICO incorporates New Jersey’s statutory
definition of murder, and a state court jury already acquitted him of murder under New
Jersey law. Stafford’s Br. at 28–39. We exercise plenary review over the preserved double
jeopardy argument. United States v. Hodge, 870 F.3d 184, 194 (3d Cir. 2017).
While Stafford’s argument is colorable, it is stymied by our precedent. In United
States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1107 (3d Cir. 1990), we held that “appellants’ previous
acquittals for . . . murders do not provide us with reason to disturb their RICO convictions
on double jeopardy grounds.” This is because the federal interest in prosecuting a RICO
offense differs from a state’s interest in prosecuting the predicate offenses. Id. at 1106
(citing United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1088 (3d Cir. 1977)). By prosecuting a
12
RICO offense, the federal government, unlike a state, seeks to vindicate the effect of the
predicate offenses “on interstate or foreign commerce through a pattern of racketeering
activity.” Frumento, 563 F.2d at 1088. But see id. at 1099 (Aldisert, J., dissenting)
(arguing that double jeopardy should apply when “defendants have previously been
indicted, tried, and acquitted of the precise state crime assimilated into the federal crime
by definition”).
Contrary to the assertion by Stafford, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019), does not alter our analysis. Stafford’s
Br. at 30–37. He contends that, under Gamble, his RICO and VICAR charges are
impermissible “carve out[s]” and “exceptions” to the double jeopardy rule. Id. at 36. On
the contrary, Gamble merely reaffirmed the dual sovereignty doctrine that motivated our
decisions in Pungitore and Frumento. See Gamble, 139 S. Ct. at 1966, 1980; see also
United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922) (“[A]n act denounced as a crime by both
national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may
be punished by each.”); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959) (declining to
overrule Lanza because “[n]o consideration or persuasive reason . . . is advanced why we
should depart from [Lanza’s] firmly established principle”). Since Gamble, two other
circuit courts have rejected double jeopardy challenges to RICO convictions that involve
earlier state prosecutions. See United States v. Brown, 973 F.3d 667, 702 (7th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d 310, 321 (1st Cir. 2019). Thus Gamble does not
13
disturb our precedents in Pungitore and Frumento that preclude Stafford’s double jeopardy
argument.
D. Stafford Has Not Shown that the Government’s Addition of the Murder
Predicate on Retrial Amounts to Vindictive Prosecution.
Stafford claims that the Government acted vindictively when it added RICO and
VICAR charges associated with Hope’s murder for his second trial after he went to trial
the first time, testified in his own defense, and successfully sought a retrial. Stafford’s Br.
at 48. The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on this ground, which
we review for clear error to the extent it relied on factual determinations and without
deference to the extent it applied the law. United States v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300, 303 (3d
Cir. 1992).
Stafford’s claim of vindictive prosecution is not frivolous. The Government, despite
knowing Stafford was previously charged with Hope’s murder in state court years earlier,
did not charge him in connection with that murder in his first trial. Instead, it added those
charges late in the process, after his first trial had resulted in a mistrial, and after it had
already classified Stafford as a “non-violent” offender for retrial.
In general, “there are two ways in which a defendant can prove a claim of
vindictiveness.” United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993). First, he
may “use evidence of a prosecutor’s retaliatory motive to prove actual vindictiveness.” Id.Second, “in certain circumstances, a defendant may show facts sufficient [for] a
presumption of vindictiveness.” Id. Here, the District Court found that there was “no
14
evidence of any vindictiveness,” and it had “no reason to infer in any way, shape, or form
that [adding a charge] was done to be vindictive.” App. at 172.
On the record before us, we cannot conclude that this finding was clearly erroneous
or that the Court misapplied the law. See generally United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S.
368, 380 n.12 (1982) (noting that the Court’s earlier decision had left open “the possibility
that a defendant might prove through objective evidence an improper prosecutorial
motive,” but it had declined to find sufficient proof even when “the prosecutor had stated
explicitly that additional charges were brought to persuade the defendant to plead guilty”);
id. at 380–81 (“[T]here is no evidence in this case that could give rise to a claim of actual
vindictiveness; the prosecutor never suggested that the charge was brought to influence the
respondent’s conduct.” (emphasis in original)); Paramo, 998 F.2d at 1221 (noting that
proof of actual vindictiveness is “exceedingly difficult to make,” as the Supreme Court has
“adopted . . . a strict standard of proof” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We thus ask whether we have a circumstance pointing to the presumption of
vindictiveness. We apply this presumption “only where there exists a realistic likelihood
of vindictiveness.” Paramo, 998 F.2d at 1220 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). And Stafford’s circumstances appear a poor fit for the presumption. See, e.g.,
Esposito, 968 F.2d at 302 n.1 (observing that “the presumption of vindictiveness does not
apply” where “the circumstances have changed”); United States v. Marrapese, 826 F.2d
145, 149 (1st Cir. 1987) (concluding that “it is unlikely any retaliatory animus flowed from
the first trial’s ending in a mistrial; after all, the mistrial was due to a hung jury, not to any
15
legal challenge by [the defendant]”); Gov’t Br. at 31 (noting that Stafford faced mandatory
life in prison regardless whether they had added Hope’s murder). But even assuming in
Stafford’s favor, without deciding, that he could prove a realistic likelihood of
vindictiveness that would ordinarily be sufficient to raise the presumption, it “still would
not apply” if “the government has proffered legitimate reasons, based on objective record
evidence,” for its conduct. Paramo, 998 F.2d at 1220; see also Esposito, 968 F.2d at 305(“And even if a presumption applies, the government may rebut it by proffering legitimate,
objective reasons for its conduct.”).
The Government explains that it did not get Terrell (their star witness on the murder)
to cooperate and provide inculpatory testimony against Stafford until just before the first
trial, too late to add the charge during the first prosecution. This explanation is reasonable
and supported by the District Court’s recitation of the facts.4 See, e.g., App. at 169 (noting
that the first trial date was “a firm trial date” and that the Court had “vividly advis[ed] that
this was to be the last indictment”); id. at 170 (finding that “on September 28th[] Mr. Terrell
pled guilty and was free to serve as a cooperating witness in this case, and at that point . . .
we were literally two weeks away from trial”). Stafford’s claim of prosecutorial
vindictiveness thus comes up short.
4
Stafford notes that the Government first severed him from some of his co-defendants on
the ground that he was a non-violent drug offender, and only later reversed course and
sought an indictment related to Hope’s murder. This alone does not change our conclusion.
See Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 382 (“A prosecutor should remain free before trial to exercise
the broad discretion entrusted to him to determine the extent of the societal interest in
prosecution. An initial decision should not freeze future conduct.”).
16
E. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Failing to Grant a
Mistrial Because of One Reference to Stafford by the Alias “Homicide.”
The District Court instructed the parties to avoid using Stafford’s nickname
“Homicide” throughout the trial for obvious reasons.5 App. at 224–26. Nonetheless, one
witness slipped up and called Stafford “Homicide” on one occasion, which was also
preceded by the abbreviated form “Homo.” App. at 819. The District Court denied
Stafford’s subsequent motion for a mistrial, a decision that we review for abuse of
discretion. App. at 851; United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190, 207 (3d Cir. 2005).
It is hard to imagine a nickname more prejudicial than “Homicide” in a murder trial.
But use of a prejudicial nickname does not always require a mistrial. Cf. United States v.
Williams, 974 F.3d 320, 361 (3d Cir. 2020) (permitting use of a defendant’s nickname
“Killer” because it had some probative use). “In reviewing the denial of [a] motion on that
standard, three factors guide our analysis: (1) whether [the witness’s] remarks were
pronounced and persistent, creating a likelihood they would mislead and prejudice the jury;
(2) the strength of the other evidence; and (3) curative action taken by the district court.”
Lore, 430 F.3d at 207. Here, as in Lore, the “single statement by a witness . . . can hardly
be deemed ‘pronounced and persistent’” in the context of the three-week trial and the two-
day testimony by this witness. Id. The record evidence in this case is quite strong,
including damning eyewitness testimony by Terrell that tied Stafford to both drug activity
and the shooting that led to Hope’s murder. See, e.g., App. at 872, 932. And while the
5
However, the Court did allow the abbreviated form “Cide,” on the ground that it could be
short for words other than homicide and there was probative value because that name
matched some documentary evidence in the form of a photo notation. App. at 225, 853.
17
Court did not issue a curative instruction to the jury regarding this remark, that decision
rested with Stafford’s counsel, who reasonably declined the Court’s offer of an instruction
on the belief that it was better to just let it go rather than drawing the jury’s attention to it.
App. at 852–53 (The Court: “And if you want me to give the instruction, I will, but I
thought it was better to let it go . . . .” Defense Counsel: “So thank you for that. Your
inclination was the correct one, and I appreciate your handling it exactly as you did . . . .
[W]e want you to give the instruction to [the witness,] . . . [a]nd we do not want anything
addressed to the jury in any way.”). In that context, we are confident the District Court did
not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial based on this isolated use of a prejudicial
nickname.
F. The District Court’s Evidentiary Limitations on Stafford’s Testimony at
Trial Were Permissible.
Stafford takes issue with the District Court’s rulings that excluded his own
testimony that Iyan was using PCP (a hallucinogenic drug), that Stafford had chastised him
about this drug use, and that Iyan and his family blamed Terrell for the murder of Iyan’s
brother. We generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, although we do
not apply the deferential standard when (1) a district court does not make a record of the
balancing required under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 or (2) when we are interpreting the
rules themselves. United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 117 (3d Cir. 2016); United States
v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 199 (3d Cir. 1992). And, to the extent Stafford argues that these
evidentiary limitations impermissibly restricted his right to testify in his own defense, we
18
exercise plenary review over this purported constitutional violation. United States v.
Leggett, 162 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 1998).
The right to testify in one’s own defense “has sources in several provisions of the
Constitution,” as it is “essential to due process of law,” a “necessary corollary to the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantee against compelled testimony,” and separately guaranteed by a
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to “call witnesses in his favor.” Rock v. Arkansas, 483
U.S. 44, 51–52 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). But while he has a “right to
present his own version of events in his own words,” “the right to present relevant
testimony is not without limitation.” Id. at 52, 55. It “may, in appropriate cases, bow to
accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Id. at 55 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Evidentiary rules still apply, so courts must “evaluate whether
the interests served by a rule justify the limitation imposed on the defendant’s constitutional
right to testify,” and in particular whether the restrictions are “arbitrary or disproportionate
to the purposes they are designed to serve.” Id. at 56.
While we do not imply the existence of a per se rule, we note that neutrally applied,
well justified, and long-established principles of evidence generally do not violate a
defendant’s right to testify in his own defense. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284,
302 (1973) (“In the exercise of this right, the accused, as is required of the State, must
comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness
and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.”); United States v. Bifield, 702
F.2d 342, 350 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding that a defendant’s right to testify on his own behalf
19
“does not entitle him to place before the jury evidence normally inadmissible”). But see
United States v. Pohlot, 827 F.2d 889, 901 (3d Cir. 1987) (concluding that “[e]videntiary
rules that would bar the testimony of the defendant himself . . . need particular
justification”).
Here, the District Court engaged in on-the-record balancing with respect to
Stafford’s proposed testimony that Iyan appeared to be high on PCP or that they had an
argument over Iyan’s purported PCP use. The Court concluded it was only “marginally
probative” to the question of Hope’s murder, specifically to Stafford’s story that the
shootout was provoked by a fight between Terrell and Iyan. App. at 2422. And, on the
other end of the scale, an accusation that Iyan was “smoking marijuana laced with PCP”
was “highly prejudicial and confusing to the jury.” Id. at 2423.
Next, the Court concluded that Stafford’s “testimony about . . . Iyan Williams’s
motive for shooting Terrell because of the death of his brother is not permitted under 403.”
App. at 2424. It again engaged in sustained consideration and on-the-record balancing,
and even heard from Stafford himself in addition to counsel. For example, the Court barred
Stafford from testifying to an altercation he witnessed over a year before Hope’s murder
between Iyan’s brother and Terrell. Considering “how remote it is to the actual motive,”
requiring “so many inferential leaps,” and “how far away it is temporally from the shooting
20
at issue,” the Court ruled that the “probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, [and] misleading the jury.” App. at 2415.6
While these ruling are debatable, we do not conclude that they were an abuse of
discretion. They were therefore permissible applications of Federal Rule of Evidence 403,
which has the important purpose of excluding evidence that might unduly prejudice or
confuse the jury. See generally Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006)
(“While the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that
serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted
to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its
probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion
of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Evid. 403.”).
We are further reassured that the application of these rules did not prevent Stafford
from conveying to the jury the substance of his side of the story. See generally Gov’t of
Virgin Island v. Mills, 956 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that exclusion of relevant
evidence is not a Sixth Amendment violation unless the defendant can show: “First, that
he was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in his favor; second, that the
excluded testimony would have been material and favorable to his defense; and third, that
6
The Court also expressed concerns that some of this evidence was inadmissible as hearsay
(to the extent Stafford intended to recount statements made by Iyan’s family) and on the
ground that it would impermissibly introduce evidence of other uncharged bad acts by
Terrell (the murder of Iyan’s brother), one of the Government’s witnesses. See, e.g., App.
at 2413, 2415. Because we affirm based on Rule 403, we need not consider these
alternative grounds for excluding Stafford’s testimony.
21
the deprivation was arbitrary or disproportionate to any legitimate evidentiary or
procedural purpose”). While the District Court did not permit him to testify that he thought
Iyan was on PCP specifically, it allowed him to testify that Iyan’s “pupils w[ere] dilated,”
and that “he looked under the influence” from “whatever he was on.” App. at 2552.
Stafford clearly disputed the Government’s theory that he was arguing with Terrell “over
some sort of drug deal.” App. at 2555. To the contrary, he testified he observed that, when
Terrell arrived at the cookout, both Iyan and his mother “got agitated.” App. at 2556.
Then, according to Stafford’s testimony, Iyan “pulled his gun out,” and his mother shouted
“kill that motherfucker.” App. at 2558. In response, Stafford “screamed out, don’t shoot,
bro, don’t shoot.” App. at 2560. And not only did Stafford testify that he did not join the
shooting, but that he “didn’t have a gun at all that day.” App. at 2569. While the District
Court’s rulings forced Stafford to exclude some details, it did so for sound evidentiary
reasons, the exclusions did not change the crux of his story, and we are convinced that the
details would not have changed the outcome of his case. We conclude that evidentiary
rules applied to Stafford’s testimony were neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, but rather
permissible applications of longstanding rules aimed at important judicial interests. Thus
we do not disturb Stafford’s convictions on evidentiary or constitutional grounds.
G. The Government Provided Sufficient Evidence on the Drug Conspiracy
Count.
Stafford argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him
on the drug-conspiracy count. We review sufficiency of this preserved argument de
novo—that is, with a fresh eye—asking “[w]hether, after viewing the evidence in the light
22
most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez,
726 F.3d 418, 424–25 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted)
(emphasis in original). “In cases of drug-trafficking conspiracy, the verdict must be upheld
as long as it does not fall below the threshold of bare rationality.” United States v. Williams,
974 F.3d 320, 361 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Stafford does not dispute that he bought and sold drugs. His contention is centered
on whether he was part of a conspiracy to distribute over one kilogram of heroin, arguing
that a large amount of heroin found in a house used by his distributor (707 Broadway) was
improperly attributed to him because he had nothing to do with that very large stockpile
other than sometimes buying from its distributor. Stafford’s Br. at 59–62.
Stafford’s argument that he was unconnected to the large stockpile is facially
colorable. See, e.g., App. at 1882 (testimony by Jamaal Hamilton, a member of the Grape
Street Crips, that Stafford was not to his knowledge inside 707 Broadway); id. at 2078–79
(testimony by a DEA agent that he never observed Stafford inside or outside 707
Broadway). But, on the other hand, the Government introduced evidence that was
sufficient to support a finding that Stafford was involved with a conspiracy to distribute
the much larger amount of heroin. See, e.g., App. at 872–74 (testimony that Cureton, the
purported manager of 707 Broadway, told a regular buyer of his to “see Stod [an alias of
Stafford’s] from now on,” and that Stafford and Cureton were like brothers); id. at 890
(testimony that Cureton was supplying drugs to Stafford); id. at 1689, 1935 (testimony that
23
the drugs associated with Stafford were stamped “Obamacare in red ink” and that some
drugs seized from 707 Broadway were also marked “Obamacare in red ink”); id. at 1742
(testimony that Cureton was Stafford’s “main supplier”); id. at 1776–77 (testimony that
although Cureton was not a member, the Grape Street Crips would protect him in exchange
for his drug distribution). Stafford took the stand and unambiguously testified that he had
nothing “at all” to do with the operation at 707 Broadway and that he never sold drugs
with, or bought drugs from, Cureton. Id. at 2571–72, 2576. But the jury chose to disbelieve
his story and instead believed that of the Government. “Reversing the jury’s conclusion
simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent
with the proper inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges.” Caraballo-
Rodriguez, 726 F.3d at 432. So we will not disturb Stafford’s conviction on this ground.
H. The Government Provided Sufficient Evidence on the Murder Predicates.
Finally, Stafford argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
convict him of the RICO and VICAR violations, in particular that Hope’s murder was
connected with racketeering or the Grape Street Crips. The parties contest whether
Stafford properly preserved this argument, which affects whether our review is without
deference or for plain error. See Gov’t Br. at 36; Stafford’s Br. at 64. But the standard of
review we apply makes little difference here, as we conclude there was no error (and thus
there can also be no plain error).
Stafford does not meaningfully contest most of the elements required for a RICO or
VICAR conviction, but instead makes a narrow argument: the murder of Hope Williams
24
was not in furtherance of racketeering. See generally United States v. Irizarry, 341 F.3d
273, 304 (3d Cir. 2003) (“The district court also instructed the jury in accordance with our
precedent, that the government may establish this element by showing either (1) the
defendant is enabled to commit the predicate offenses solely by virtue of his position in the
enterprise or involvement in or control over the affairs of the enterprise or (2) the predicate
offenses are related to the activities of that enterprise.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Stafford argues that Hope’s murder was simply a “man thing,” where one person
provoked a fight and the others responded in self-defense, having nothing to do with the
gang. Stafford’s Br. at 64 (quoting App. at 1878). He points to evidence in the record that
could support this theory. See, e.g., App. at 1877–78 (testimony that “if somebody does
you wrong, you wanted to be able to retaliate,” which is part of “[b]eing a man” in
Stafford’s neighborhood); id. at 1083–84 (testimony that guns were procured at Terrell’s
suggestion, not Stafford’s). This is a facially colorable argument, and the jury was free to
consider it. But to the extent that Stafford suggests that this fight within the gang (as
opposed to fights among gangs) actually hurt the group, rather than further its racketeering
purpose, we are not persuaded. On the contrary, “a defendant can commit a predicate act
that is detrimental to the enterprise so long as the evidence establishes the requisite nexus
between the predicate act and the enterprise.” Irizarry, 341 F.3d at 304. Here, the
Government offered several pieces of evidence linking the shooting that killed Hope and
the gang. See, e.g., App. at 900 (testimony that Williams worked as a drug runner for
Stafford); id. at 919 (testimony that Stafford wanted to confront Iyan about some money
25
he owed Stafford in connection with the drug business); id. at 922 (testimony that several
gang members backed up Stafford to confront Iyan, but that one person decided not to help
because he wasn’t a member of the gang). Given this evidence, we are confident that a
reasonable juror could have convicted Stafford on this ground.
* * * * *
Having carefully reviewed each of Stafford’s challenges to his prosecution and
conviction, we see no basis to remand for a new trial. We therefore affirm.
26