Opinion ID: 6333191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Developments Post-Remand

Text: In the District Court, Defendants submitted motions for a new trial under Rule 33, making Brady claims based on the withheld information. On November 18, 2021, the District Court held a classified hearing on those motions. Defendants referred to the withheld information to advance a series of arguments about LeRoux and his role in their trial. Two categories of information are relevant to the instant arguments of Hunter and Stillwell on appeal. First, the withheld information contains what the District Court usefully termed “Management and Manipulation Material”—that is, evidence that LeRoux was in firm control of his criminal empire and that he was willing to deceive, manipulate, and lie in order to advance his own interests. Many documents tend to show that LeRoux took an active hand in managing his organization. For example, LeRoux appears to have required certain employees to seek his approval before acting, and LeRoux had several in-depth conversations with his associates about wire transfers and other means of moving money. Several other documents tend to show that LeRoux had a detailed knowledge of legal systems and a willingness to manipulate them. For example, LeRoux had discussions with his wife about an investigation he was then facing in Hong Kong; he mentioned the lawyers he had employed 12 to deal with that investigation, compared his ability to affect the outcome of the investigation in Hong Kong as opposed to the Philippines, and talked about the impact that getting a divorce might have on the investigation. Second, a particular document reflects a conversation that Stillwell contends is about the disposal of the Lee murder weapon. In the communication, LeRoux had a discussion with an unidentified man, who told LeRoux that he was “going to throw the candles to the river.” 16 LeRoux appeared to reply affirmatively, urging him to throw “the other steel shit” in the river. 17 The parties also submitted information to the District Court about the withheld information itself, including how the government came by the information, what governmental entities possessed that information, and the relationships between those governmental entities and the prosecution of the legal case against Defendants. In particular, the Government submitted that the DEA agents who possessed the withheld information prior to its disclosure to the parties were members of the DEA’s Special Project Section (“DEASPS”), whereas the DEA agents who helped build the case against Defendants were members of the DEA’s Bilateral Investigations Unit 16 Gov’t Br. Ex. B, PC #2012-79691 at 2, United States v. Hunter, No. 13-cr-521RA, ECF 764. Unless otherwise noted, “Gov’t Br.” refers to the Government’s classified memorandum of law filed in the District Court on April 5, 2021 in opposition to Defendants’ Rule 33 motions on remand. 17 Id. 13 (“DEA-BIU”). The Government submitted an affidavit from the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the DEA-SPS explaining that while the DEA-SPS and DEA-BIU are both part of the DEA’s Special Operations Division [DEA-SOD], they are “separate and distinct” and “[p]ersonnel assigned to the [DEA-BIU] were not read on nor given access to information available to and collected by personnel assigned to the [DEA-SPS]” in this case. 18 On December 14, 2021, following its classified hearing, the District Court issued its Rule 33 Order denying Defendants’ motions.19 On December 28, 2021, Hunter and Stillwell filed a motion in our Court to recall the mandate. They simultaneously moved for us to vacate certain counts of conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis 20 and to remand for resentencing. Also on December 28, 2021, Samia filed a separate motion to recall the mandate in which he simultaneously moved to unconsolidate his appeal from that of the other two Defendants. On January 7, 2022, we denied the motions to recall the mandate as moot, noting that the District Court’s Rule 33 Order had automatically restored jurisdiction to our panel pursuant to our remand 18 Gov’t Br. Ex. C, at 1–2. 19 Rule 33 Order, No. 13-cr-521-RA, ECF 792, 796. 20 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). 14 order in Stillwell. 21 We denied Defendants’ motions to vacate and remand, and to unconsolidate, without prejudice. With the cause again before us, we instructed any Defendants wishing to appeal the District Court’s Rule 33 Order to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing that issue, and provided a schedule for the parties to respond and reply. That supplemental briefing was completed March 2, 2022, at which point all three Defendants’ fully-briefed initial appeals, as well as Hunter’s and Stillwell’s appeals from the Rule 33 Order, were all pending before our Court. On March 22, 2022 we heard oral argument. In a summary order filed the same day as this opinion, we address Defendants’ claims in their initial appeals. And we proceed in this opinion to examine in particular the claims of Hunter and Stillwell on appeal of the Rule 33 Order.