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

Heading: Dezorick Ford

Text: Again entering “the forbidden territory of re-weighing the evidence,” Dimora, 750 F.3d at 627, the majority rejects the district court’s assessment of Ford’s credibility in favor of its own conclusion that “Ford’s testimony deserves more credit,” Maj. Op. at 6. Like its discussion of Daniels and Dowlen, the majority’s analysis is flawed because “[w]e do not second-guess the district court’s credibility determinations,” but review only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lewis, 521 F. App’x 530, 531 (6th Cir. 2013). 3Further, Dowlen’s original statement that Hardison killed Wright belies the majority’s assertion that no one offered a competing account of another assailant. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 17 Ford testified that after he was sentenced on an unrelated case, he ran into Burks at Grayson County Jail: A. I walked up. I said, “What’s up bruh?” He was like -- first thing he asked me about was my brother. I told him I just got sentenced. And I explained to him, my brother got severed away from the case. And he was like, “Yeah?” And I was explaining to him what happened and how much time I got, and how I got eight years, nine months, 105 months. He was, “Like, damn. For a bad mother------?” I said, “Yeah.” He said, “Damn. I hope they don’t come get me on a bad mother------.” Q. What do you understand the term of “bad mother------” to mean? A. On a murder case. R. 1475, PID 12701. The district court noted that over the course of trial, it “learned that use of the word ‘motherf’ is not uncommon. However, the first time and only time the Court recalls ‘bad motherf’ being used as a synonym for murder was during Ford’s testimony.” R. 1460, PID 11822. The majority responds that it is fair to infer that the term did refer to a murder charge because “there are plenty of gang-related terms with non-obvious meanings.” Maj. Op. at 6. But the majority’s own interpretation of the evidence is irrelevant, what matters is whether “[t]he trial record . . . supports the district court’s conclusions.” United States v. Hendricks, 950 F.3d 348, 355 (6th Cir. 2020). The “district court judge, who had a ring-side seat at the trial,” reached a reasonable conclusion supported by the record. Dimora, 750 F.3d at 627. The district court also discredited Ford’s testimony because “(1) Ford is a member of the Vice Lords, (2) the Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords are archenemies who compete for territory, (3) Ford is the one who sucker-punched Hardison at Sidelines.” R. 1460, PID 11822. Again, the majority abandons the proper standard of review, reweighs the evidence and the credibility of the witness, and reaches its own conclusion based on an incomplete review of the record: “Though the Vice Lords and Disciples fought, members still associated with each other. Ford in particular had good reason to go outside his usual circle. His brother belonged to the Disciples and knew Burks.” Maj. Op. at 6. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 18 It is true that Ford’s brother was a GD. Ford, however, testified that he has a “strained” relationship with that brother: “I always had kind of a sibling rivalry with him. . . . He -- maybe he carried hisself like he was better than me since we was little kids. So I always kind of went against whatever he was doing.” R. 1475, PID 12621, 12624. It is also true that GDs and Vice Lords in Clarksville sometimes associated for business purposes. However, Ford testified that although he had a relationship with some GDs from growing up with them, “that’s a different situation than the ones that I don’t know that well or didn’t know me that well.” Id. at 12632. And Ford gave no indication that he knew Burks well. Ford’s antipathy toward the GDs was peppered throughout his testimony. In one situation, a GD named “Mac New York” shot at a Vice Lord and Dowlen attempted to reconcile with Ford. Id. at 12664-65. Despite Dowlen’s overture on behalf of the GDs, Ford, as leader of the Vice Lords, ordered reprisal: Q. Did that actually squash that beef? A. No. Yes and no. From -- we always was trying to kill New York. But -- Q. Why? A. Just through a lot of different instances that he done throughout -- you know, time of knowing him. And just the brothers always wanting to get at him. Even that night, I sent a couple guys and the other high-ranking member Vice Lords sent a couple guys to shoot at him in Lincoln Homes that night. Q. Even though you had that meeting with Mr. Dowlen earlier that day? A. Yes. Id. at 12666. And on the night Wright was murdered, Ford testified that he instigated the fight between the GDs and Bloods: Q. Did you see an opportunity here, Mr. Ford? A. Yes. Q. What opportunity was that? A. Basically, I’m be honest with you, it is a sneaky shot. Because, you know, I’m blending in with the crowd. Like, I know, I never had a dealing with him personally. So, like, just recognizing me, just looking at me, he wouldn’t know exactly who I was. He probably would have just thought I was another Blood. No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 19 So when I hit him, you know, it was -- I guess he probably told all them, “Yeah, I got into some fights with some Bloods.” Q. Did you see an opportunity here to instigate an incident between the GDs and the Bloods? A. Yes. Q. And why would you want to do that? A. I mean, it’s -- him being a GD and me being Vice Lord, it’s like, how often do I catch an opportunity that – one that I don’t deal with, to just get a chance to do something to ‘em. Id. at 12688. On cross-examination, counsel drew out a comparison between Ford’s opportunism in instigating an attack against a GD and his opportunism in testifying against a GD, Burks: Q. So your sister’s on the phone and she says, “Hey, there’s some people that got picked up in Clarksville.” You start looking up who they were, right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew that those specific people that were on the internet, you read about, if you could give information about them, you could help yourself, right? A. Possibly, yes. Q. Possibly. So how many times does an opportunity like that come along, where you thought you weren’t going to testify to help yourself out, and then, all of a sudden, hey, maybe I can do this one more time? Was that not the same situation as you found yourself in in C-Ray’s that night in 2012? A. It’s different reference, but I guess you could say that, yes. Q. And so here you took that opportunity, didn’t you? A. Yes. Id. at 12735-36. Because of Ford’s position as the leader of a rival gang and his admissions that he looked for and took opportunities to harm the GDs, the record contains ample support for the district court’s decision to discount Ford’s testimony and Burks’s purported “confession.” Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Further, the majority ignores the district court’s observation that, just as with Daniels and Dowlen, it is a stretch to say that Ford described a “confession.” As the district court explained, No. 19-6010 United States v. Burks Page 20 “the jury would also have to assume that Burks was referring to Wrights’ murder. Why this would be so is not made clear by the Government.” R. 1460, PID 11822-23. Even if “bad mother------” meant a murder charge, Ford’s testimony does not implicate Burks in the murder of Wright specifically. That Burks stated he hoped authorities would not charge him with murder might suggest that he committed a murder, or it might suggest that he was worried about the possibility of being wrongly accused. Further, Ford did not testify that Burks ever mentioned Wright, and it is a large leap to infer that Burks’s concern about a murder charge generally means that he killed Wright specifically. Again, this is not to say that any particular conclusion is correct, but that the district court’s credibility determinations and assessment of the evidence are supported by the record. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion.