Order and Reasons — No. 2:23-cr-00184 (Dkt. 51, E.D. La.)

Summary

An Order and Reasons, Document 51 filed June 13, 2024 in the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN, Criminal Action No. 22-184), United States v. Blair Taylor, by Judge Eldon E. Fallon. A federal grand jury indicted the defendant on August 18, 2023 on two counts of causing death with a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy, over a 2014 shooting for which a Louisiana jury had found him not guilty in October 2022. The government moved in limine to admit a recorded August 16, 2014 jail call in which he asks his then-girlfriend whether the hammer is still in the kitchen. The court grants the motion, finding the call admissible non-hearsay, with trial 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

Cite this document

“Order and Reasons — No. 2:23-cr-00184 (Dkt. 51, E.D. La.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-and-reasons-no-2-23-cr-00184-dkt-51-e-d-la-2fad081323/, SHA-256 d07940a2bd0485d63e0c95edf21e392f17b2d9b2d13041f6884d8c8d87b1ef39.

Full text

Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 51 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 4

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 Admit Recorded Jail Calls, R.

Doc. 44. 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 a 33-year-old man, T.M. Five other people had been shot, including

children ages 2, 4, and 13.

After the shooting, detectives received multiple tips about the perpetrators and their

vehicle. Detectives conducted surveillance, identified the vehicle, and arrested Mr. Taylor. They

obtained a warrant and searched both Mr. Taylor’s apartment and the apartment of Mr. Rivers, an

alleged participant in the shooting. In Mr. Rivers’ apartment, detectives found a 9mm handgun on

top of the kitchen cabinets. The Government alleges that this weapon was used in the shooting,

and that Mr. Taylor placed the handgun in this location.
Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 51 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 4

After his arrest, Mr. Taylor faced state law charges for second-degree murder, attempted

second degree murder, and obstruction of justice. On October 21, 2022, a Louisiana 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). These

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

18 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. 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. Mr. Taylor is set to go to trial on June 17, 2024. .

II. PRESENT MOTION

The Government seeks to include at trial a recording of a call which they allege Mr.

Taylor made from jail to his then-girlfriend, Ashley Shorts, on August 16, 2014. R. Doc. 44-1 at

3-4. In the call, Mr. Taylor asks Ms. Shorts whether there is “still, that um, that hammer still in

the kitchen.” Id. at 4. Ms. Shorts then replies that the hammer is “gone” and that “they got it” to

which Mr. Taylor responds “ah, man” and “man, man, man.” Id. The Governments intends to

argue at trial that by “hammer” Mr. Taylor actually meant a 9mm handgun. Id. The government

alleges that such a handgun was used in the shootings and later found in the kitchen of an

apartment to which Mr. Taylor had access. Id. Thus, the government seeks to admit this evidence

as proof of Mr. Taylor’s involvement in the shooting. Id.

The Government contends that this call is admissible evidence. Id. at 5-6. First, it argues

that Mr. Taylor’s statements are admissible as non-hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) because

they are statements of a party-opponent offered against him. Id. at 5. Second, it contends that Ms.

Shorts’ statements are admissible as non-hearsay because they are not offered for the truth of the

matter asserted. Id. at 5-6. Rather, they are offered to give context to Mr. Taylor’s statements. Id.
Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 51 Filed 06/13/24 Page 3 of 4

The Government contends that it would be difficult for the jury to understand Mr. Taylor’s

statements if all of Ms. Shorts’ statements are redacted. Id. at 6. Thus, the Court should admit

Ms. Shorts’ statements with a limiting instruction directing the jury that they are not to be taken

for the truth of the matter asserted. Id.

The Defendant has not responded to the Government’s motion.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

Here, the recording is admissible as non-hearsay. As to Mr. Taylor’s statements, a

statement is “not hearsay” if it is “offered against an opposing party and . . . was made by the

party.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Thus, “[h]earsay problems are not a concern if the jury

believes that the defendant was one of the participants in the conversation; any statements he

made would be admissible as a statement of a party opponent.” United States v. Thompson, 130

F.3d 676, 683 n.7 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, the parties have stipulated to the authenticity of the

recording. R. Doc. 41. These statements are thus admissible. Id.

The other statements on the call, which the government alleges were made by Ms. Shorts,

are admissible to give context to Mr. Taylor’s statements. The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held

that “reciprocal and integrated utterances” that put the defendant’s statements “in context” are

admissible where they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. United States v. Flores,

63 F.3d 1342, 1358 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 199 (5th Cir.

1997) (holding that the one side of a recorded conversation was admissible as party-opponent

statements and the other side was admissible for context); United States v. Cheramie, 51 F.3d

538, 541 (5th Cir. 1995) (same). Courts frequently enter a limiting instruction directing the jury

that the statements by the non-party are only to be used as context and should not be taken for
Case 2:23-cr-00184-EEF-MBN Document 51 Filed 06/13/24 Page 4 of 4

the truth of the matter asserted. See Cheramie, 51 F.3d at 541; United States v. Octave, 575 F.

App’x 533, 538 (5th Cir. 2014).

Here, Ms. Shorts’ alleged statements give Mr. Taylor’s statements context. If her

statements were redacted, the jury’s ability to comprehend Mr. Taylor’s statements would be

impaired. For example, after Mr. Taylor asks about the whereabouts of the “hammer,” Ms. Shorts

replies, “they got it” to which Mr. Taylor responds “ah, man” and “man, man, man.” R. Doc. 44-

3 at 2. Without Ms. Shorts’ statement, the jury would have a difficult time interpreting Mr.

Taylor’s statements of “ah man” and “man, man, man.” Overall, Ms. Shorts’ statements are

necessary to give context to the conversation. Flores, 63 F.3d at 1342.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion, R. Doc. 44 is GRANTED. The Court

finds that the recorded jail call is admissible non-hearsay.

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

_______________________________
HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 51.pdf
Size: 207,900 bytes
SHA-256: d07940a2bd0485d63e0c95edf21e392f17b2d9b2d13041f6884d8c8d87b1ef39
Our copy: 51.pdf
Original: No public link identified.