Opinion ID: 159242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Robbery and Murder at Mr. Goodcents

Text: 5 Two men, one wielding a handgun, robbed Mr. Goodcents Subs & Pastas (Mr. Goodcents) in Wichita, Kansas, at approximately 9:55 p.m. on Monday, February 17, 1997. As the men emptied the cash register and safe, the handgun accidentally discharged, killing Amie Montgomery, the nineteen-year-old shift supervisor who was on duty. The robbers fled with roughly $2,500. 6 Based upon interviews with various informants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Eric Pearson (Mr. Pearson) and several others in relation to the events at Mr. Goodcents. According to the FBI agents who interrogated him, Mr. Pearson confessed to being involved in the Mr. Goodcents robbery and implicated his cousin, Dominic Pearson (Dominic), and their friend Courtney Martin. 7 In February 1997, the United States Attorney's Office filed three separate informations in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas charging Eric and Dominic Pearson and Courtney Martin with violating 18 U.S.C. §§§ 2, 924, and 1951 for their roles in the killing of Amie Montgomery and the robbery of Mr. Goodcents. Three days later, a grand jury returned three separate superseding indictments charging the Pearsons and Mr. Martin with those offenses. On March 12, 1997, the grand jury issued a consolidated superseding indictment adding two other defendants, Deborah Meyer and Gracie Ginyard, another cousin of Eric Pearson. The superseding indictment also added several new counts under 18 U.S.C. §§§ 2, 924, and 1951 against Eric and Dominic Pearson. On April 17, 1997, the government filed a second superseding indictment against the same defendants. 8 Mr. Martin, Ms. Ginyard, and Ms. Meyer pleaded guilty and agreed to testify at Mr. Pearson's trial. Ms. Meyer, who had been an assistant manager at Mr. Goodcents, stated that Mr. Pearson, her boyfriend at the time, had discussed with her various plans to take money from Mr. Goodcents. She testified that she also met with Mr. Pearson and his cousin Dominic and talked about where the restaurant kept its money and when would be the best time to rob it. She stated that before the date of the robbery, the Pearsons left her house intending to rob Mr. Goodcents, but later told her they could not complete the crime because there were police around the restaurant. However, according to Ms. Meyer, Mr. Pearson continued to plan to take money from Mr. Goodcents until February 17, 1997. Finally, Ms. Meyer testified that Mr. Pearson was not employed during the time she knew him but that he supported himself as a hustler and a pimp [who] just had women. Rec. vol. VII, at 132. Upon objection from defense counsel, the court instructed the jury to disregard Ms. Meyer's reference to Mr. Pearson as a pimp. However, the court overruled the objection as to the term hustler. 9 Ms. Ginyard testified that she had heard Mr. Pearson talking about robbing Mr. Goodcents in January. She further testified that, in February, he approached her while she and Ms. Meyer were working at the restaurant and asked her to help him stage a robbery of Ms. Meyer when she went to deposit the store's receipts. Ms. Ginyard stated that she agreed to the plan, but then changed her mind after speaking with Ms. Meyer. According to Ms. Ginyard, Ms. Meyer subsequently told her that Mr. Pearson was going to rob the store on the evening of February 16, when Ms. Ginyard was working and could ensure that no one would be hurt. However, she noted that Mr. Pearson did not rob the restaurant that night. During her testimony, Ms. Ginyard also identified the murder weapon as Mr. Pearson's gun. 10 Mr. Martin testified that, on February 17, he and Dominic had robbed the restaurant while Mr. Pearson waited in the car. Mr. Martin claimed he was at his girlfriend's house prior to the robbery and that Dominic arrived around 8:30 p.m. Mr. Martin stated that, prior to going to Mr. Pearson's residence, they drove around, smoking marijuana. According to Mr. Martin, when they arrived at Mr. Pearson's residence around 9:00 p.m., Mr. Pearson and Dominic conversed in another room before discussing the robbery with him. Mr. Martin claimed that Mr. Pearson assured him that the robbery would go well because Ms. Meyer had given Mr. Pearson detailed information about how to commit the crime. Mr. Pearson also explained that he could not enter the restaurant because the employees might recognize him. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Pearson supplied the gun and the clothing for Mr. Martin and Dominic to wear, drove them to Mr. Goodcents, waited in the car, and then drove them away after the crime. Mr. Martin admitted that he was holding the gun when it fired, killing Ms. Montgomery. He also testified that the three of them had split the robbery proceeds. 11 The government also presented several witnesses who were not involved in the crime. FBI Special Agent Charles Pritchett testified that, during an interrogation just after his arrest, Mr. Pearson confessed to robbing Mr. Goodcents with Dominic and Mr. Martin. According to Special Agent Pritchett, Mr. Pearson told him that he drove Dominic and Mr. Martin to Mr. Goodcents, parked on the north side of the store, waited while Dominic and Mr. Martin robbed the store, and then split the proceeds with them. 12 Monie Dyer, a former girlfriend of Mr. Pearson's, testified that on February 20th, Mr. Pearson paged her. She stated that she drove Mr. Pearson to his house, where he gave her a rifle wrapped in a blanket, which she took to her garage. She added that, as she was taking the rifle out of the trunk of her car, she noticed something falling out of the blanket. When she looked in her trunk, she saw a handgun and a rifle clip. 1 She claimed that on the following day she disposed of the handgun in a dumpster after she learned of Mr. Pearson's arrest and after Bruce Dikes (Mr. Pearson's cousin) told her to dispose of the gun for [her] own good. Id. vol. VIII, at 372-73. After receiving an anonymous phone call, which they later determined was made by Ms. Dyer, the police retrieved a handgun from the same dumpster. Forensic tests on the gun showed that it had fired the bullet that killed Ms. Montgomery. On cross-examination, Ms. Dyer testified that she was not sure how the handgun got into her trunk and that someone who borrowed her car on the twentieth must have put the gun in the trunk. When asked repeatedly who had her car on the twentieth, she responded: 13 I just couldn't get to my car. 14 . . . . 15 I was riding with a friend and my car was at my house. Matter of fact, I don't know where my car was that night. But I couldn't, I couldn't get to it at that time. I was riding with someone else. I was way across town. 16 . . . . 17 I don't know don't know exactly. 18 . . . . 19 I don't think [I let any men borrow my car]. 20 . . . . 21 People were telling me that [a man named Bernard] was the one that put the gun in my car. . . . No, [Bernard] didn't use my car. 22 Id. at 353-54, 358, 359, 368-69. 23 Angela Starks, an employee of Mr. Goodcents who was present during the robbery, testified to the details of the crime. She stated that she knew Mr. Pearson and would have recognized him had he robbed the store. She admitted that she did not see Mr. Pearson rob the store and did not see any cars or movement during the robbery. 24 Steve Peterson, the owner of Mr. Goodcents, testified that the restaurant is part of a national chain and purchases goods from both Kansas and out-of-state companies for sale to customers. According to Mr. Peterson, business suffered after the robbery and killing, and the stolen money would have been used to purchase goods produced outside of Kansas. Mr. Peterson stated that he knew Mr. Pearson, because he had taken Mr. Pearson and Ms. Meyer to dinner, and would have recognized him if Mr. Pearson had robbed the store while Mr. Peterson had been working. 25 After the close of the government's case, Mr. Pearson called Kenneth Hawkins as an alibi witness. Mr. Hawkins testified that Mr. Pearson was at his house on the night of the robbery from before sundown (around 6:10 p.m.) until 3:00 a.m. According to Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Pearson only left once during the evening, after 10:00 p.m., and was gone for no more than twenty minutes. On cross-examination, Mr. Hawkins admitted that when questioned by FBI agents during the investigation, he did not tell the FBI that Mr. Pearson was with him on the night of the robbery. He explained his failure to disclose this information by noting that the FBI agents never asked him specifically if he knew where Mr. Pearson was during the Mr. Goodcents robbery. Mr. Hawkins further explained that he was the only person working in his store when the FBI agents came to interview him, and he was busy. 26 After hearing this testimony, the government called rebuttal witnesses, including Kaleb Fowler, who worked at Mr. Goodcents and knew Mr. Pearson, and Shannon Miller, a former girlfriend of Mr. Pearson's. Mr. Fowler testified that he called Ms. Meyer's house between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m., after dark, on the night of the robbery and that Mr. Pearson, whose voice he recognized, answered the telephone. In her testimony, Ms. Miller identified a letter sent to her in Mr. Pearson's handwriting. The letter was signed with Mr. Pearson's nickname, Ace, and sent from the Harvey County jail, where Mr. Pearson was being held. The letter read, in pertinent part: 27 [T]hese feds have been trying to get hell and dirty on me. Telling lies, saying that I've said things that I haven't. Really trying to screw me. I was sitting here thinking about that night and I remembered at 10:00 I was talking to you on the phone. First we talked on my cell phone. Then I called back on the studio phone so it would be cheaper. That's when we talked about me coming over. It was 10:00. This is very important to my case. Would you be willing to let them know you were talking to me? Please, baby, it's important. If they ask how you know it was 10:00 say the news came on while we were talking. Don't mention us talking about me coming over because I let them know I was at the studio until 2:45 a.m. But we did talk from about 9:50 until 10:10. I'm gonna call you tonight. . . . If you're down when I call I'll say 'are you all good.' You just say yes. Then I'll know. 28 Id. vol. IX, at 690-91. Ms. Miller averred that Mr. Pearson called her to ensure that she would testify as he asked in the letter, but she refused: I told him that I didn't appreciate . . . him involving me in this whole ordeal, that I would not lie for him, I would not perjure myself. Id. at 692. 29 At the conclusion of all the evidence, the jury convicted Mr. Pearson on all counts. At the sentencing hearing the judge overruled Mr. Pearson's objections to the presentence report and imposed concurrent 240 month sentences for the Hobbs Act violations and a life sentence for the § 924 violation. 30 During the trial, the judge made several remarks about Mr. Pearson's character. After a bench conference, the court reporter told the judge that she saw Mr. Pearson making threatening gestures to a witness. In discussing the court reporter's observation with the attorneys, the judge referred to Mr. Pearson as a punk, first class, . . . a manipulator. . . [who] runs whores . . . [and] lives off. . . women. Id. vol. VII, at 276-77. 31 During the sentencing hearing, the district court referred to Mr. Pearson as a predator, a manipulator who preys on women and as someone who has [n]ever done anything decent in his life and has nothing going for him. Id. vol. X, at 33-35. Observing that Mr. Pearson smirked through the trial as if it were entertainment, the court also called Mr. Pearson repulsive and a poster boy for a life sentence in a federal penitentiary. Id. at 35. Finally, reacting to a disruption in the audience during Mr. Pearson's sentencing, the district court stated, Another one of your girlfriends, I assume. A lot of stupid people around here. Id. at 36. When Mr. Pearson's counsel spoke in his defense, the court, recalling trial testimony, responded: 32 What redeeming qualities are there about someone whose claim to fame is impregnating three different women [and] not supporting his children? 33 . . . . 34 [W]here do you suppose those children are going to be in 15 or 20 years? Or 25? With mothers who apparently are prostitutes and a father who is spending the rest of his life in a federal penitentiary. 35 Id. at 39-40; see also Rec. vol. VII at 189,193 (testimony from Ms. Meyer noting that Mr. Pearson had three children with three different women). 36 B. The Assignment of the Case to Judge Belot 37 When the government filed three separate informations against Eric Pearson, Dominic Pearson, and Courtney Martin in February 1997, the court clerk's office assigned each case to a different United States District Judge: Eric Pearson's case was assigned to United States District Judge John Thomas Marten; Dominic Pearson's case was assigned to Judge Monti L. Belot; and Mr. Martin's case was assigned to United States District Judge Frank G. Theis. 38 However, when the grand jury returned the consolidated superseding indictment against Eric Pearson, Dominic Pearson, Mr. Martin, Deborah Meyer, and Gracie Ginyard on March 12, 1997, the court clerk's office assigned the consolidated case to Judge Belot. Judges Marten and Theis then dismissed the previous indictments against Eric Pearson and Courtney Martin. 39 After the consolidated case was assigned to Judge Belot, the government filed a motion to sever the trials of Dominic Pearson and Courtney Martin from those of Eric Pearson, Ms. Meyer, and Ms. Ginyard. The government based its motion on the fact that Eric Pearson, Ms. Meyer, and Ms. Ginyard had each made statements that implicated others and therefore [i]t would be easier to deal with those people first and deal with others that we don't have statements from second. Rec. vol. III, doc. 68, at 2. Judge Belot granted the motion to sever, but all of the cases remained assigned to him. 40 Subsequently, Mr. Pearson filed a motion seeking random reassignment to a new judge, contending that the government had purposely filed the charges against the defendants in such a manner that the consolidated case would be assigned to Judge Belot. Mr. Pearson explained the method employed by the government as follows: 41 This case assignment was not a random assignment. 42 a. Where formerly the order of the accused persons had listed Eric D. Pearson as first on the Information and first on the individual Indictment numbered 97-10025-01; 43 b. On the Superseding Indictment, Eric Pearson was listed second. Inexplicably, and for the first time in this case, Mr. Dominic Pearson was listed first. 44 c. Upon information and belief, the normal practice of the U.S. Attorney is to list the defendant thought the most culpable as the first, or lead, defendant. 45 d. The Clerk's office did not place the Superseding Indictment in the random assignment pool, because there were already judicial assignments on the related, technically superseded, individual Indictments. 46 e. Instead, the Clerk's office continued a prior assignment. 47 f. There were three prior assignments available to the Clerk . . . [i.e., the cases pending before Judges Marten, Belot, and Theis]. 48 g. Instead of selecting among the three randomly, or choosing the allegedly most culpable defendant, or choosing to assign the Superseding Indictment to the Judge who already had the first filed Indictment (United States v. Eric D. Pearson, Case No. 97-10025), the clerk based the judicial assignment on how the Superseding Indictment was pled. Rec. vol. I doc. 77, at 2-3. 2 49 Mr. Pearson maintained that the government's motive for judge-shopping was a series of rulings that Judge Belot had made in two similar murder cases, rulings that allegedly were in large part favorable to the government. Id. at 3. Although Mr. Pearson maintained that some of these rulings were not directly dictated by higher court precedent, id., he also acknowledged that [s]ome are, it is true, dictated by precedent. Id. at 5. 50 Judge Belot held a hearing on the motion. Mr. Pearson introduced testimony from Bonnie Stinson, an employee in the clerk's office in the Wichita branch of United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The purpose of her testimony was to show that the assignment system was susceptible to manipulation. Ms. Stinson testified that, as a general rule, cases involving superseding indictments were not randomly reassigned to a new judge. Instead, the United States Attorney's office labeled the superseding indictment with the same case number that had been previously assigned to the case involving the defendant listed first in the superseding indictment. The new case would then be assigned to the judge handling the prior case. 51 However, in this instance, the government did not include a case number on the superseding indictment. Ms. Stinson testified that, when the clerk's office telephoned the U.S. Attorney's office to inquire why the number had been left blank, the U.S. Attorney's office responded that it would be up to [the clerk's office] to decide what case number would be assigned, that [the U.S. Attorney's office] did not want to make that decision. Id. vol. XI, at 6. On the superseding indictment, the court clerk's office then filled in the number originally assigned to the prior case involving only Dominic Pearson (who was the first defendant listed in the consolidated superseding indictment). The selection of that case number had the effect of placing all defendants before Judge Belot. 52 In response to Mr. Pearson's motion for random reassignment, the government denied the allegation that it purposefully sought to have the case assigned to Judge Belot. It stressed that it had left the case number on the superseding indictment blank so that the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office would make the assignment in the manner it or the Court deemed appropriate, id. vol. II, doc. 129, at 2, but it offered no explanation as to why it changed the order in which it listed the defendants' names. The government did, however, state that if this Court wishes to make another judicial assignment herein, the United States would not object. Id. at 3. 53 After hearing Ms. Stinson's testimony about the case assignment procedures in the District of Kansas, Judge Belot denied the motion for random reassignment from the bench, stating that it was much ado about nothing. Id. vol. XI, doc. 263, at 14. He reasoned that if the government had wanted it assigned to me they could just have put [the number for Dominic Pearson's original case] on the indictment and they didn't do it. Id. at 15. He explained his view of the record as follows: 54 The Court: . . . .I've been around here off and on for 25 years and I'll guarantee you that I know the judges in this district better than Mr. Henry [one of Mr. Pearson's attorneys] does. And I also know that there aren't any of them that are more likely to favor the defense or favor the government. And I do not like the implication on the record that I somehow favor the government. 55 Mr. Gradert: Well, Your Honor, we're not trying to make that implication. In fact, in Mr. Henry's defense, Mr. Henry did not prepare this motion. And this motion was prepared by someone other than Mr. Henry and myself; however, we all discussed. 56 The Court: Well, who was it prepared by? 57 Mr. Gradert: It was prepared by Mr. Dedmon, Your Honor. 58 The Court: That's another one that I would think--Mr. Dedmon has never appeared in my court. Knows absolutely nothing about me. Yet the implication of this is that I will not be fair to a defendant. That's the entire implication of this, that I favor the government. 59 Mr. Gradert: Your Honor, it's not so much that you will favor one or the other; but it's the Government's perception frequently that you might be that way and that was their purpose for-- 60 The Court: There is no evidence on the record in this case. You had an opportunity. You could have called the United States Attorney. You could have called any of the assistants to establish that if you could. 61 Mr. Gradert: Your Honor, I chose not to call them because their response indicated that they, that they selected to do this in the manner they did; and frankly, I'm not too sure that they would, that they would give me a response that I would want to hear with regard to-- 62 The Court: Well, that really isn't the issue, is it, Mr. Gradert? If their response is truthful it really doesn't make any difference whether it's a response that you want to hear, is it? 63 Id. at 16-17.