Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190716_0002444.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 17:43:30
Document Index: 694619111

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1959', '§ 924', '§ 1959', '§ 924', '§ 1863']

EDWIN MILLS & CARLO WILSON, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
BILLY ARNOLD, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT EDWIN MILLS' SECOND MOTION FOR ACCESS TO JURY SELECTION RECORDS AND MATERIALS [#912]
DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT.
A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment on February 28, 2018, charging the eleven defendants in this case with various crimes, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. (Dkt. 292) This case was randomly assigned to Judge Mark Goldsmith. That indictment claims that Defendants were members and associates of a criminal enterprise-the “6 Mile Chedda Grove” street gang in Detroit, Michigan-one of whose purposes was to “preserv[e] and protect[] the power, territory, reputation, and profits of the enterprise through murder, robberies, intimidation, violence, and threats of violence.” (Id. at 2, 6.) The enterprise purportedly operated on the east side of Detroit within an area bordered roughly by East McNichols Road to the north, Kelly Road to the east, Houston-Whittier Street to the south, and Chalmers Street to the west. (Id. at 2.) The “Chedda Grove” part of the enterprise's name is partially derived from one of the main streets in this territory-Cedargrove Street. (Id.)
The indictment further alleges that the enterprise's profits derived primarily from the sale and distribution of controlled substances, including crack cocaine, heroin, and morphine. (Id. at 5.) The drug sales and distribution alleged were not limited to Michigan; gang members and associates purportedly sold and distributed controlled substances in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and West Virginia. (Id.)
Eight of the eleven defendants have since pleaded guilty.[1] The three remaining defendants have been separated into two groups with separate trial dates. (Dkt. 425) Group One is currently composed of one defendant, Robert Baytops, who is not subject to the death penalty upon conviction. His trial will be scheduled at a future date. (Dkt. 846) Group Two, composed of two defendants who are death-penalty eligible, has a trial date of April 21, 2020. (Dkt. 475)
Defendants Edwin Mills (“Mills” or “Defendant”) and Carlo Wilson (“Wilson”) belong to Group Two and have each been charged with one count of racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); two counts of murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1); two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j); two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3); and one count of using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Dkt. 292) On March 1, 2018, the Government filed its notice of intent to seek a sentence of death against Mills and Wilson. (Dkt. 293)
On February 15, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Access to Jury Selection Records and Materials. (Dkt. 768) Wilson filed a notice of joinder concurring in the relief sought in that Motion on February 15, 2019. (Dkt. 769) On March 25, 2019, the Court[2] denied Defendant's Motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's deadline for making such requests pursuant to the date set forth in the Court's Stipulated Order (Dkt. 758). (Dkt. 844) On April 3, 2019, Defendant moved for an extension of time to file any challenges to the jury cross-section pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45. (Dkt. 858) The Court granted Defendant's request on April 30, 2019. (Dkt. 898)
Defendant filed his Second Motion for Access to Jury Selection Records and Materials on May 6, 2019. (Dkt. 912) Wilson filed a notice of joinder concurring in the relief sought in that Motion on May 8, 2019. (Dkt. 917) In another case that is currently pending in front of Judge George Caram Steeh, United States of America v. Arnold, et al. (15-cr-20652), Defendant Billy Arnold (“Arnold”) sought to join the instant Motion on June 4, 2019.[3] Judge Steeh granted Arnold's request on June 10, 2019.[4] Any rulings made in regard to the instant Motion will therefore apply to Mills, Wilson, and Arnold. On May 16, 2019, the Government filed its Response (Dkt. 922) and Defendant filed his Reply on May 21, 2019 (Dkt. 924). This Motion is currently before the Court and a hearing was held on May 22, 2019.
In his Motion, Defendant argues that he has an “unqualified right” to inspect and copy “records or papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with the jury selection process.” (Dkt. 912, Pgs. 6-7) Defendant contends that courts have found that capital cases require extra precautions to protect the defendant's right to an impartial and representative jury because of the “broad discretion given the jury at the death penalty hearing” and “the special seriousness of the risk of improper sentencing.” Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 37 (1986); Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 163 (1st Cir. 2013); Gibson v. Zant, 705 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir. 1983). Defendant specifically requests access to the following materials:
1. The Juror Selection Plan for the Eastern District of Michigan currently in effect, and if different in any respect, at the time the grand and trial jurors were and will be summoned in this case;
2. Any AO-12 or JS-12 form created which relates to the Master Jury Wheel that was used to summon the grand jurors who returned the indictment in this case and will be used to summon trial jurors as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a);
3. Any other statistical or demographic analyses produced to ensure the quality and compliance of the Master Jury Wheel that was used to summon the grand jurors and will be used to summon trial jurors in this case with the Juror Selection Plan's Section (a), the Jury Selection and Service Act (“JSSA”), and constitutional requirements;
4. Any other statistical or demographic analyses produced with respect to the Juror Selection Plan's Sections (g)(1)(G) and (u)(1);
5. The date when the Master Jury Wheel that was used to summon grand jurors and will be used to summon trial jurors in this case was refilled as described in the Juror Selection Plan's Section (h)(3);
6. The calculation of proportional representation for each county as described in the Juror Selection Plan's Section (h)(2);
7. The dates the Supplemental Draw was or is in effect as described in the Juror Selection Plan's Section (k)(2);
8. The items described in the Juror Selection Plan's Section (t)(5)(B);
9. The items described in the Juror Selection Plan's Section (t)(5)(C);
10. The dates when grand jurors were summoned and trial jurors will be summoned in this case;
11. The number of persons that will be summoned from the Master Jury Wheel to be considered as grand and trial jurors in this case;
12. Master Jury Wheel data in electronic and accessible form that includes juror number, race, gender, Hispanic ethnicity, birth year, zip code, and county;
13. Status Codes for potential jurors who were selected for qualification but either had their qualification form returned by the postal service, did not respond, or were disqualified or exempted from jury service. The data should be in electronic and accessible form that includes juror number, whether the form was returned as undeliverable, whether the form was not returned, reason for disqualification, race, gender, Hispanic ethnicity, birth year, zip code, and county;
14. The juror number only (not name or address) for persons whose juror summons and qualification forms were returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the replacement person's juror number as ...