Order and Reasons — United States v. Blair Taylor (Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 52)

Summary

An Order and Reasons in United States v. Blair Taylor, Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN, Document 52, filed June 13, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It addresses the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to and/or Evidence of the defendant's February 2017 Guilty Verdict and October 2022 Not Guilty Verdict, and recites that the defendant has not responded. The order reasons that the prior acquittal is irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay, and that the prior conviction, vacated as unconstitutional because it was decided by a non-unanimous jury, would create unfair prejudice. It orders the motion GRANTED and directs the parties to refer to the prior trials in general terms. Trial is stated as set for June 17, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

       Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 52 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 5




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                             *               CRIMINAL ACTION

VERSUS                                               *               NO. 22-184

BLAIR TAYLOR                                         *               SECTION L(5)

                                    ORDER AND REASONS

       Before the Court is the United States’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to and/or

Evidence of Defendant’s February 2017 Guilty Verdict and October 2022 Not Guilty Verdict. R.

Doc. 40. Defendant has not responded to the motion. Considering the briefing, the record, and

the applicable law, the Court rules as follows.

  I.       BACKGROUND

       This case arises out of an alleged shooting, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. On

August 10, 2014, the New Orleans Police Department responded to 911 calls at 5437/5439

Burgundy Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. They found two victims dead on the scene: a 16-

year-old girl, J.A., and an adult man, T.M. Five other people had been shot, including children

ages 2, 4, and 13.

       Three days later, Mr. Taylor was arrested for these crimes. He faced state law charges for

second-degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and obstruction of justice. On February

2, 2017, Mr. Taylor was found guilty of all charges by a non-unanimous jury, (11-1), which was

then permitted under Louisiana state law. However, after Mr. Taylor’s conviction but prior to his

appeal, the United States Supreme Court found non-unanimous juries unconstitutional in Ramos
       Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 52 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 5




v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020). Accordingly, Mr. Taylor was granted a new trial. On October

21, 2022, a jury found Mr. Taylor not guilty.

       On August 18, 2023, a federal grand jury issued a two-count indictment against Mr.

Taylor. R. Doc. 1. Both counts charge Mr. Taylor with causing death through the use of a firearm

on August 10, 2014, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j)(1) and (2). Id. These crimes

were allegedly committed in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Id. Each count is as to a different victim; Count 1 is as to the death of

J.A. and Count 2 is as to the death of T.M. Id. Mr. Taylor is set to go to trial on June 17, 2024.

 II.       PRESENT MOTION

       The Government seeks to exclude at trial evidence or references concerning Mr. Taylor’s

February 2, 2017 guilty verdict and his October 21, 2022 not guilty verdict. R. Doc. 40. The

Government makes three arguments in support. R. Doc. 40-1. First, the Government argues that

both prior verdicts are irrelevant: they merely show that the state succeeded or failed to prove

certain other elements of different charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 4-6. Second, the

Government argues that the prior judgements are hearsay, and do not fall within any hearsay

exceptions or exemptions. Id. at 6. Finally, the Government argues that the unfair prejudice of

admitting evidence of these judgments would outweigh its probative value under Fed. R. Evid.

403. Id. at 6-7. The Government contends that the prior conflicting verdicts have no probative

value and there is a substantial likelihood that discussion of the verdicts would confuse the jury.

Id.

       The Defendant has not responded to the Government’s motion.
       Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 52 Filed 06/13/24 Page 3 of 5




III.       LAW & ANALYSIS

       The government argues that evidence of the prior verdicts should be excluded, as such

evidence is (1) irrelevant (2) inadmissible hearsay, and (3) unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R.

Evid. 403. R. Doc. 40-1. Each argument is addressed in turn.

       A. Defendant’s Prior Acquittal is Not Admissible
       First, prior acquittals are irrelevant to the merits of later charges. “Irrelevant evidence is

not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a

fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

consequence in determining the action.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

has “squarely held that, as a general matter, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding

evidence of a prior acquittal on a related charge.” United States v. De La Rosa, 171 F.3d 215, 219

(5th Cir. 1999). This is because the acquittal “does not prove innocence but rather merely

indicates that the prior prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable

doubt at least one element of the crime.” United States v. Kerley, 643 F.2d 299, 300–01 (5th Cir.

1981) (holding that a police officer’s state court acquittal on battery charges was not admissible

in a later federal prosecution arising from the same conduct). Rather, a past acquittal is only

relevant where the defendant has raised issues of double jeopardy. Id. (citing United States v.

Viserto, 596 F.2d 531, 537 (2d Cir. 1979)).

       Second, prior acquittals are inadmissible hearsay. United States v. De La Rosa, 171 F.3d

215, 219 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] judgment of acquittal is hearsay not otherwise exempt from the

operation of the hearsay rule.”). Finally, prior acquittals are usually excluded under Fed. R. Evid.
          Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 52 Filed 06/13/24 Page 4 of 5




403. See id. (“And, even if not for these barriers to admissibility, evidence of a prior acquittal

will often be excludable under Fed. R. Evid. 403, because its probative value likely will be

substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the

jury.”)

          Here, Defendant’ s prior acquittal should be excluded on all three of these grounds. The

acquittal is irrelevant, as Defendant has not raised double jeopardy. Kerley, 643 F.2d at 300–01.

Even if the acquittal were relevant, it is inadmissible hearsay. De La Rosa, 171 F.3d at 219. And

finally, the acquittal is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Id. The jury would be seriously

confused and misled if they were to hear of a prior verdict on state law charges arising from the

same conduct as the current federal prosecution.

          B. Defendant’s Prior Conviction is Not Admissible

          Similarly, Defendant’s past guilty verdict should be excluded. First, the Government itself

argues that the conviction is not relevant and should be excluded. R. Doc. 40-1 at 7-8. Thus, no

party advocates for its admissibility. Second, this past conviction should be excluded under Fed.

R. Evid. 403. The conviction was eventually vacated by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeal as unconstitutional because it was decided by a non-unanimous jury. State v. Taylor,

2018-1039 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/17/20), 302 So. 3d 145, 146. It would create unfair prejudice to

allow the jury to hear evidence of a conviction that was later vacated as unconstitutional. And,

evidence of this conviction, like evidence of the acquittal, would mislead and confuse the jury as

to the charges and elements at issue in the present case. See De La Rosa, 171 F.3d at 219.

Because the risk of unfair prejudice is substantial and the probative value low, the prior

conviction must be excluded under Rule 403.
       Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 52 Filed 06/13/24 Page 5 of 5




IV.         CONCLUSION

        For the foregoing reasons,

        IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion, R. Doc. 40 is GRANTED. Should the

parties need to reference any witness’s prior testimony at trial in the present matter, IT IS

ORDERED that the parties refer to the prior trials in general terms. For example, the parties can

refer to the witness’s testimony “in a prior proceeding related to this matter” or “in a previous

hearing regarding this case.” Overall, parties should not disclose the existence of prior verdicts to

the jury.




New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of June, 2024.



                                                             _______________________________
                                                              HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON
                                                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


File and source

File

52.pdf

Size

216,489 bytes

SHA-256

689360283de71c80659dfc85008c9d7fc09d6ea658fefa8f07cfdc30476061c0

Our copy

52.pdf

Original

No public link identified.