United States District Court, S.D. New York
For the United States of America: Edward B. Diskant, AUSA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, New York, NY.
For Tyrone Davis, Defendant: Steven Brill, Esq., SULLIVAN & BRILL, LLP, New York, NY.
For Charles Bonner, Defendant: Michael A. Baldassare, Esq., BALDASSARE & MARA, LLC, Newark, NJ.
Opinion and Order
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge.
Defendants Tyrone Davis (" Davis" ), Damon Chappelle (" Chappelle" ), Jamil Speller (" Speller" ), and Charles Bonner (" Bonner" and together, " Defendants" ) seek the dismissal of the above-captioned indictment against them on account of alleged " outrageous government conduct." Alternatively, Defendants move to compel the Government to produce impeachment material immediately and reveal the identity of a confidential informant and confidential witness earlier than they have otherwise undertaken to make such disclosure.
The Court has carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties and, for the following reasons, the motion is denied in its entirety.
The Court accepts as true the facts proffered by the Defendants solely for the purposes of this motion practice. Unless otherwise noted, the facts recited herein are taken from the Defendants' motion papers.
Defendants, along with two non-moving co-defendants, are charged in the above-captioned indictment (the " Indictment" ) with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) and (b)(3). Defendants Chappelle, Bonner, and Speller are also charged in the Indictment with one count of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2.
Defendants allege that the Government utilized a plan, common to a number of other otherwise unrelated cases, to lure Defendants into attempting to commit a drug-related armed robbery. A confidential source, referred to pseudonymously as " CS-1" in the underlying Complaint (13 Mag. 2712), informed agents of the Government that Davis and his crew, apparently including the other Defendants, had committed robberies of drug dealers in the past and were capable of committing the violent robbery that was allegedly the object of the charged conspiracy. The Government's
plan was to introduce Davis to a confidential witness, referred to as " CW-1" in the Complaint, in order to entice Defendants into traveling from Philadelphia to New York City with the intention of intercepting and robbing a fictitious group of drug couriers supposedly traveling with large quantities of cocaine and heroin from Miami to New York City. CW-1 arranged with Davis for a meeting with the other Defendants on October 24, 2013, to discuss the robbery. CW-1 met with defendants Chappelle and Bonner at a McDonald's restaurant in Manhattan. CW-1 warned Defendants that the couriers were armed and dangerous, and encouraged Defendants to bring firearms for the robbery. CW-1 and an unnamed " partner" (actually a team of Government agents) were the architects and instigators of the robbery and drug distribution conspiracies. CW-1 provided the amount of drugs, the timing of the robbery, and suggested that the Defendants should " come ready, [because] they got guns." (Def. Mem. Supp., docket entry no. 66, at 10.) This statement, Defendants allege, was designed to ensure that the Government could charge Defendants with possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and drug trafficking offense.
The Government alleges in its opposition papers that, at the October 24, 2013 meeting, Bonner and Chappelle made clear that they were experienced robbers of drug dealers, and that they asked CW-1 for the details of the robbery plan. Furthermore, the Government alleges that Bonner stated " I can move like 10 [kilograms] a week easy" and " I can move the heroin or the coke, but it has got to be grade A." (Gov't Opp., docket entry no. 80, at 5-6.) The Government alleges that Chappelle insisted on an allocation of the expected profits of the robbery, 60% for Defendants and 40% for CW-1, because he had to pay a portion to " Ty" (Davis) for arranging the meeting of ...