Opinion ID: 4563208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Danyon Dowlen

Text: In discussing the testimony of Danyon Dowlen, the majority misinterprets both the district court’s reasoning and the record. First, the district court concluded that the shooter “was described by Gaskin as being of ‘medium height.’” R. 1460, PID 11820. The majority reweighs the evidence and disagrees, concluding that “Gaskin did not see a ‘medium’ height person shoot Wright. She saw a medium height person standing over Wright after someone fired the second shot.” Maj. Op. at 5. Gaskin testified: A. By the time he fell and I heard the gunshot, though, nobody else was running out. Q. You said you heard a second gunshot? A. Correct. Q. Where was Malcom when you saw -- when you heard the second gunshot? A. Lying in the doorway. Q. In the front door -- in the front entrance? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you observe who shot him? A. I did not. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 13 Q. Where was the gunshot coming from? From the outside? From the inside? Do you have any recollection? A. From the inside. Q. . . . And when you heard that gunshot, were there other people in that area? A. There -- there -- no. When I heard the gunshot, yes, there were other people in the area. It was someone -- someone appeared to be standing over him. Q. Can you explain that? A. I -- it just -- everything was going so fast, but it appeared like somebody had stopped right there, and then I heard the gunshot. Q. Was it only one person and Malcom at the entrance to the club? A. At that time. Q. Okay. Do you remember what this person looked like? A. No. Q. Okay. Male or female? A. Male. Q. Tall or short? A. Medium. Q. Okay. Do you remember any type of hair? A. No. Q. African-American, Caucasian? A. African-American. Q. Okay. And then this – when you heard that gunshot and that person standing there, was anybody else in that – that room? A. No. Q. So it was just the three of you? A. Yes. Q. Just you crouched down, Malcom at the entrance to the door and another person? A. Yes. Q. And you heard a gunshot at that time? A. Yes. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 14 R. 1483, PID 12808-10. It is true that Gaskin stated that she did not observe who the shooter was. But she also testified that the shot came from inside the bar and that the only persons present in the room were herself, Wright, and the medium-height man standing over him. The man “stopped right there, and then [Gaskin] heard the gunshot.” Id. at 12809. The district court properly reviewed this testimony, weighed the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion. The district court’s determination that Gaskin described the shooter as being of medium height was not clearly erroneous and was not an abuse of discretion. Second, according to the majority’s misreading, the district court took issue with Dowlen’s testimony because “[t]he shooter hit Wright in C-Ray’s ‘front entryway,’ not outside the club.” Maj. Op. at 5. The majority then asserts that the district court erred because “Dowlen did not claim that Burks shot Wright outside C-Ray’s. He related Burks’s surprise that Wright had made it outside C-Ray’s despite being shot twice.” Id. But the district court nowhere stated that Dowlen claimed that Burks shot Wright outside C-Ray’s. Rather, the district court noted an obvious inconsistency between the testimonies of Gaskin and Dowlen: The Government also argues that Burks’ purported confession that Wright was shot in the head at the back door is not inconsistent with the evidence because Burks did not say Wright exited via the back door. All he really said was that “Wright managed to get to the back door of the club, seemingly after Burks had shot him in the head.” Problem is, this scenario is in direct conflict with Gaskin’s testimony that, after Wright was shot the first time, he crawled towards the front of C-Ray’s and was then shot in the front entryway by the same shooter. R. 1460, PID 11820 (citation omitted). Dowlen’s story, in which Burks stated that Wright “was still crawling” and “made it to the back door,” R. 1474, PID 12436, is undeniably in conflict with Gaskin’s story, in which she saw Wright stumble toward “[t]he front door” and “[t]he entrance to the club” after the first gunshot, R. 1483, PID 12806-07. After acknowledging the conflicting testimony, the district court properly exercised its discretion as the thirteenth juror and credited Gaskin’s version over Dowlen’s: “In a war of credibility between Gaskin and Dowlen, Gaskin wins hands down. She certainly wanted to see justice for Malcolm’s killer, but she also had no need to curry favor from the government.” R. 1460, PID 11820. The district court’s credibility determination is fully supported by the record. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 15 Third, the district court explained that “Dowlen testified Burks said that he shot Wright in the head, but Dr. David Zimmerman of the Davidson County Medical Examiner’s Office testified that Wright was shot in the abdomen and the leg, and that Wright did not sustain a head injury.”2 R. 1460, PID 11819. Entering “the forbidden territory of re-weighing the evidence,” Dimora, 750 F.3d at 627, the majority responds that “it’s possible he either could not see where the first shot landed or he embellished the target with a detail that would make him appear ruthless or skillful,” Maj. Op. at 6. But, properly weighing the evidence in its role as the thirteenth juror, the district court considered this possibility: “[T]he exact same argument could be made if Burks did not shoot Wright at all—he could simply claim to have shot him in the head to gain stature and increase his reputation.” R. 1460, PID 11820. The majority rejects the district court’s assessment of the evidence in favor of its own. But “appellate court judges, who have only a transcript to work with, have no such authority.” Dimora, 750 F.3d at 628. Finally, the district court’s most critical observation is that Dowlen originally told the government that Hardison, not Burks, killed Wright: Nor does Dowlen’s trial testimony square with what he had told authorities in the past. In a statement to agents, Dowlen said that Hardison probably killed Wright. Later, Dowlen changed course and pinned the blame on Burks. The Government explains this discrepancy as resulting from “Dowlen’s mere prior speculation” 2Similar to Daniels, Dowlen did not describe a straight-forward confession: A. Mr. Burks proceeded to say, “He made it to the back door. He -- he a bad” -- excuse my language – “he a bad mother------. I hit him in his head once and he was still crawling. So I hit him again. Good thing I had it in me.” Q. Did you understand what he was talking about? A. Yes, that he had shot Mr. Gotti in the head. R. 1474, PID 12436. Dowlen was later asked what he thought Burks meant by “hit”: Q. When he said, “I hit him in the head” -- A. Shot him. Q. – you’re not talking about a punch to the head? A. No. Q. All right. So my question was, you’re telling us Mr. Burks told you that he shot Malcolm Wright, correct? A. Yes. That’s what I took it as. Id. at 12520. The possibility that Burks described a punch to the head rather than a gunshot to the head further supports the district court’s weighing of the evidence. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 16 being “later debunked.” (Doc. No. 1443 at 36). Elsewhere, the Government asserts that Dowlen “was surprised by [Burk’s] admission to Wright’s murder because, until that point, Dowlen had assumed that Hardison had killed Wright.” (Id. at 27). Maybe so, but the “surprise” revelation from Burks allegedly occurred . . . in December 2012 or January 2013. The Government provides no explanation as to why Dowlen held on to his (now debunked) assumption for more than a year when he told agents in January 2014 that Hardison “probably” killed Wright. Nor does the Government offer a plausible explanation for why Dowlen waited yet another year thereafter to reveal Burks’s supposed confession. R. 1460, PID 11820-21. The majority responds that “Burks’s counsel cross-examined Dowlen on the point. The jury heard his response and decided whether he (and the other witnesses) told the truth.” Maj. Op. at 8. But the fact that the jury heard about this issue is irrelevant to the question before us. If the district court “disagree[d] with the jury’s resolution of conflicting evidence,” we must “examine the record to determine whether the district court relied on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Paulus, 894 F.3d at 279 (alteration in original) (quoting Lutz, 154 F.3d at 589). The inconsistency and timing of Dowlen’s statements support the district court’s determination that he was not a credible witness and its conclusion that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous factual findings and it did not abuse its discretion.3