IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JELANI LEE :

and :

TOMMY SPURILL :

and :

JAMES KOLLORE : NO. 05-216-2, 3

Stengel, J. April 11, 2006 

 

MEMORANDUM

Jelani Lee has filed a motion to preclude the testimony at trial of Herbert Hughes. 

Lee also seeks to preclude the admission of a letter he allegedly wrote that found its way

into Hughes’ possession and was eventually given to the police.

On March 8, 2005, Herbert Hughes was incarcerated at Lancaster County Prison. 

Hughes was a cellmate of Tommy Spurill, one of Jelani Lee’s codefendants. Through

Spurill, Hughes came into possession of a letter purportedly written by Jelani Lee. The

letter refers to the circumstances of Lee’s arrest and discusses, inter alia, retribution

against or intimidation of a witness in his case, Linsey Boyer.

When the police came in possession of the Jelani Lee letter, they interviewed

Herbert Hughes, who gave them information he had purportedly obtained from his cell

mate, Tommy Spurill. Hughes also related to the police conversations he had with “CCase 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 101 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 5
2

Lo” (an alias used by Jelani Lee). Apparently Hughes and Lee discussed some of the

circumstances surrounding the arrest of Lee and Spurill. 

The police then interviewed Linsey Boyer on two occasions, March 4, 2005 and

March 17, 2005. Linsey Boyer was in the car, along with Lee, Spurill and a third

defendant, James Kollore, at the time of the arrest.

Jelani Lee is asking the Court to preclude the use of certain statements made by

Lee to Hughes or statements from Jelani Lee’s letter. These statements are: (1) that

Spurill was angry with Jelani Lee for not getting him out of jail; (2) that Lee was angry

with Spurill for bringing Ms. Boyer along with the young men in the car; (3) Lee would

“beat his case” because of illegal police procedure; (4) Ms. Boyer should plead guilty

because the drugs were found on her; (5) Lee’s girlfriend had between $34,000 and

$40,000 of his money; and (6) Lee wanted to pay someone to “beat up” Ms. Boyer.

These statements are all relevant to issues involved in the trial of this case. Lee is

charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Lee, Kollore and Spurill were

arrested together after a car Lee was operating was stopped by the Lancaster City Police. 

The relationship among these three defendants will be important at trial, as will be their

knowledge and intent with respect to the cocaine found in the car. At a minimum,

Spurill’s “anger” at Lee for not getting him out of jail would support the government’s

contention that Lee was the leader of these three defendants, and that Spurill had some

belief, based upon that relationship, that Lee should get him out of jail. Ms. Boyer’s

Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 101 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 5
3

testimony concerning Lee’s promise of bail money corroborates the testimony of Herbert

Hughes that Spurill was expecting Lee to bail him out of jail.

Lee’s “anger” at Spurill for bringing Ms. Boyer along with them also supports the

government’s position that Lee was the ringleader of the group. Lee’s state of mind, i.e.,

anger at Spurill for involving Boyer, suggests his awareness that their activity on the

evening of the arrest was criminal. 

Lee’s belief that he would “beat his case” may or may not be relevant in this case. 

It will be necessary for the Court to consider these comments in the context of the

evidence presented at trial. For now, the motion will be denied without prejudice to

Jelani Lee’s ability to raise the issue at the time of the trial.

The statement by Lee that Boyer should plead guilty is a clear statement of his

knowledge that drugs were in the car, that drugs were found on Boyer, and that the

possession of those drugs would lead to criminal liability. This testimony will buttress

Boyer’s testimony at trial that she was told by Lee and the others to hide the cocaine when

the police were pulling them over.

Lee’s statement that his girlfriend had between $34,000 and $40,000 of his money

would also be further evidence of his involvement in drug trafficking. The government

has the burden of showing who possessed the cocaine and for what purpose. Lee’s

possession of a large amount of money in connection with his possession, actual or

constructive, of cocaine, would be an important fact on the issue of his state of mind.

Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 101 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 5
4

Lee’s statement that he wanted to pay someone to “beat up Ms. Boyer” is a clear

statement of consciousness of guilt. Ms. Boyer appears to be the primary witness against

Lee, Spurill and Kollore, and threatening her or intimidating her because of her particular

role in this case is an expression of his consciousness of guilt.

At the time the statements were made to Hughes, he was not acting as an agent of

the government. In fact, there is no evidence in this record so far that Hughes has ever

acted as an agent of the government. Hughes was incarcerated and may have been hoping

for benefit from the government were he to assist them. This does not make him an agent

and there is no evidence that the government “set him up” or took any action that would

place him in an agency relationship with the prosecution.

For these reasons, Lee’s motion to preclude the testimony of Herbert Hughes and

to preclude the use of the letter turned over by Hughes will be denied.

Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 101 Filed 04/12/06 Page 4 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JELANI LEE :

and :

TOMMY SPURILL :

and :

JAMES KOLLORE : NO. 05-216-2, 3

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2006, upon careful consideration of the

defendant Jelani Lee’s motion and the government’s response, it is hereby ORDERED

that defendant, Jelani Lee’s motions to preclude and suppress the testimony of Herbert

Hughes (Doc. # 69) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Lawrence F. Stengel 

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 101 Filed 04/12/06 Page 5 of 5