& ¢

Clark guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore, Kent Clark’s motion for
judgment of acquittal is denied,
CG Clarence Irons
Clarence Irons has moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal. We
deny Clarence Irons’ motion for judgment of acquittal. When viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government, as we are required to do in ruling on a Rule 29 motion, we
find that there is adequate evidence in the record from which a rational jury could find Clarence
Irons guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore, Clarence Irons’ motion for
judgment of acquittal is denied.
D. Andre Lawrence
Andre Lawrence has moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal.
We deny Andre Lawrence’s motion for judgment of acquittal. When viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government, as we are required to do in ruling on a Rule 29 motion,
we find that there is adequate evidence in the record from which a rational jury could find Andre
Lawrence's guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore, Andre Lawrence’s
motion for judgment of acquittal is denied.
E. Nyroby Seymour
Nyroby Seymour has moved, pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal.
We deny Nyroby Seymour’s motion for judgment of acquittal. When viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government, as we are required to do in ruling on a Rule 29 motion,

we find that there is adequate evidence in the record from which a rational jury could find



& ad

IV. Clarence Irons’ Rule 404(b) Motion

Clarence Irons seeks to bar the government’s introduction of his prior conviction. Lrons
argues that the government failed to identify, until almost the end of its case, the purpose for
which it was intending to introduce this evidence. Irons argues that this evidence is barred,
pursuant to Rule 404(b), because the government did not give reasonable notice of the purpose
for which they were intending to introduce 404(b) evidence.

We grant Lrons’ motion for the reasons stated in open court. The prejudice to defendant
Irons in admitting this evidence is great. Therefore, we hold that the government is barred from
introducing evidence of Clarence [rons’ prior conviction as part of its case.

v. Defendants Motions For Judgment Of Acquittal

A. Andre Seymour
Andre Seymour has moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal.
We deny Andre Seymour’s motion for judgment of acquittal. When viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government, as we are requited to do in ruling on a Rule 29 motion,
we find that there is adequate evidence in the record from which a rational jury could find Andre a
Gasulecs guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment, Therefore, Andre Scymour’s motion ves
for judgment of acquittal is denied.
B. Kent Clark
Kent Clark has moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal. We

deny Kent Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal. When viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government, as we are required to do in ruling on a Rule 29 motion, we

find that there is adequate evidence in the record from which a rational jury could find Kent



& ad

Nyroby Seymour guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore, Nyroby Seymour’s
motion for judgment of acquittal is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we make the following rulings:

Troy Lawrence’s motion for production of the transcripts and documents initialed by the
witness Lavert Griffin (# 550) is denied;

Troy Lawrence’s motion for the court to reveal the content of the government’s ex parte
motion regarding a witness (#573) is granted;

Troy Lawrence’s motion for a mistrial (# 575) is denied;

Clarence Irons’ Rule 404(b) motion is granted;

Andre Seymour’s motion for judgment of acquittal is denied;
Kent Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal is denied;

Clarence Irons’ motion for judgment of acquittal is denied;

Andre Lawrence’s motion for judgment of acquittal is denied; and

Nyroby Seymour’s motion for judgment of acquittal is denied;

ae YL olenbee 4.203 Aye

Wayne’R. Andersen
United States District Judge



Minute Order Form (06/97) 8

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Name af Assigned Judge Wayne R. Andersen Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 2 CR 200 - 1,6,11,12,17,22 DATE 11/7/2003
CASE United States of America ys. Troy Lawrence et al
TITLE
[la the following box (a) indicate the party Gling the motion, c.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3¢d party plaintiff, and (h) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the mation being presented. ]
DOCKET ENTRY;
a oa Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) QO Bricf in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefduc___.
(4) QO Ruling/Hearingon____sctfor___att
(5) o Status hearing{held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on_——set for at_
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-scl for]on__ssetfor__— al
(7) Oo Trial{sct for/re-set for] on__.__sat
(8) im} [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_____aat
(9) 0 This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

| [Other docket entry] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: Motion [550-1] is denied.
Motion [573-1] is granted. Motion [575-1| is denied. Clarence Iron’s Rule 404(b) motion is granted. Andre
Seymour, Kent Clark, Clarence Irons, Andre Lawrence and Nyroby Seymour’s motions for judgment of
acquittal are denied.

a) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)

No notices required, advised in open court.

‘No notices required. uinbor of notices

42003

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Y_| Notitied counse! by telephone. NOV 1

Docketing to mail notices.

Mai A040 en eS

Copy to judge/magisteate judge,

courtroom dane mailed notice

TSA deputy’s t

initials - :
Date/time received in a
gentral Clerk's Office nailing deputy initiats



% e

JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ‘a argriey
Plaintiff, ) yaw 14: 2003
v. ) Case No. 02 CR 200
TROY LAWRENCE, ef al. } Judge Wayne R. Andersen
Defendants. ;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on the following motions: Troy Lawrence’s motion for
production of the transcripts and documents initialed by the witness Lavert Griffin; Troy
Lawrence’s motion for the Court to reveal the content of the government’s ex parte motion
regarding a witness; Troy Lawrence's motion for a mistrial, Clarence Irons’ Rule 404(b) motion;
Clarence Irons’ motion for judgment of acquittal; Kent Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal;
Andre Seymour's motion for judgment of acquittal; Nyroby Scymour’s motion for judgment of
acquittal; and Andre Lawrence's motion for judgment of acquittal. For the following reasons, the
motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Troy Lawrence’s Motion For Production Of The Transcripts And
Documents Initialed By The Witness Lavert Griffin (# 550)

Troy Lawrence seeks an order requiring the government to produce the transcripts and
documents initialed by the witness Lavert Griffin for the reasons stated in open court. We deny

this motion because the Court has reviewed, in camera, the documents initialed by Lavert Griffin,

pat


. ad

The Court finds the changes made by the witness to be minor and not relevant to the issues
presented in this casc. Therefore, the motion is denied.

I. Troy Lawrence’s Motion For The Court To Reveal The Content Of The
Goyernment’s Ex Parte Motion Regarding A Witness (#573)

On September 30, 2003, the government filed an ex parte motion regarding a witness in
the case. The Court reviewed the govemment’s motion and found that the information pertaining
to the witness was inadmissible and immaterial to the issues involved in the current case. Troy
Lawrence has now filed a motion requesting that the Court reveal the content of the
government’s ex parte motion. We grant this motion and order the government to reveal the
contents of the motion to the defendants, although our original ruling as to the admissibility of

the information regarding the witness remains in effect.

In. Troy Lawrence’s Motion For Mistrial (# 575

Troy Lawrence seeks @ mistrial because the government elicited testimony from Green
Sallis of an alleged shooting incident, the “B.D. Doug” incident, in which some of the
defendants on trial are alleged to have been shooting at other individuals. Lawrence argues that
this shooting activity is uncharged conduct and the government did not give notice pursuant to
Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence of this information or the government's intention
to use it.

We deny this motion, Rule 404(b) does not require disclosure of this evidence because it
is part of the conspiracy. Even if defendants were not aware of this testimony prior to trial,
defendants have had ample opportunity to prepare a defense and present evidence to contradict
the testimony. Therefore, defendants have not suffered prejudice.

For these reasons, Troy Lawrence’s motion for a mistrial is denied.