Causey, 185 F.3d at 417 (citing United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1237 (5th Cir.1990)). Davis also places much weight on evidence of his violence-free prison record during the 11 years between his arrest in 1994 and his sentencing in 2005. Hardy, along with Causey and a driver, went to Groves's neighborhood. The telephone also was used to monitor the telephone calls in which Davis allegedly ordered Groves' murder. On direct examination, Streed testified based on his review of Davis's police records from 1988 through his arrest in 1994. Because Davis did not object to the first four categories of comments in the prosecutor's closing argument, we apply only plain error review. Therefore, the district court did not believe she had the authority to do anything about the motion other than deny it on procedural grounds. The court also stated that she did not agree that the discrepancies Davis relied on were particularly significant. Davis then argued that his convictions for Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment had been overturned when this court vacated the death sentences and remanded for re-sentencing. That's how he thinks of her.. The jury found that Davis and Hardy intentionally killed Groves after substantial planning and premeditation. The factor states, in relevant part, The defendant committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person. 18 U.S.C. 938, 947 (E.D.La.1996). EOW: Sunday, July 26, 2020. Here, the prosecutor restated Jasmine's testimony that Davis never apologized in the context of discussing the family's wishes (and how they changed from wanting a life sentence to wanting the death penalty). This holding did not change the law of review of peremptory challenges, and we reject Davis's attempts to mischaracterize Snyder. Two restaurant employees were also murdered. A New Orleans cop has been arrested and suspended for allegedly withholding evidence involving the suspect charged in a fellow officer's shooting death, police said. See 18 U.S.C. The evidence included recorded telephone conversations between Davis and Hardy discussing Groves's complaint and the plan to shoot her. In his first claim, Davis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the sentencing jury's finding that he posed a threat of future dangerousness while imprisoned. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. [PROSECUTOR]: The next year, 1995, the Florida only had four homicides. Although Len Davis can distinguish right from wrong, and deserves to be held accountable for his actions, his behavior was negatively impacted by the stress of working in a high crime area. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Davis's convictions and sentences. There is so many things wrong with the justice system. During the eligibility phase of the penalty proceedings, Davis represented himself with appointed back-up counsel. According to court documents Len Davis was under investigation by the Internal Affairs for the murder of a young man who he thought was a witness to an officer involved shooting. The Brady/Giglio claim was correctly dismissed. He joined the New Orleans Police Department in 1991 Given the severity of the penalty in this case, we will review the claims separately. The conversations simply did not alert us to what would occur. The investigation hits the Police Department at a time when the agency is reeling from several years of corruption, with more than 30 officers arrested in connection with a variety of crimes. July 17, 2001) (issuing writ of mandamus that Davis be permitted to represent himself); United States v. Davis, 285 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir.2002) (issuing another writ of mandamus finding appointment of independent counsel violated Davis's right to self-representation). UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEN DAVIS Defendant-Appellant. Given the severity of the penalty in this case, we will review the claims separately..FN11. at 433-44 (Dennis, J., concurring) (discussing arguments in support of conviction under 18 U.S.C. [PROSECUTOR]: Back to coincidences now, your Honor. But see United States v. McWaine, 243 F.3d 871, 873-74 (5th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (applying the two-step analysis where the defendant did not object to prosecutor's allegedly improper remarks); United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 573-74 (5th Cir.1999) (same). As long as there have been cops in the Big Easy, there has been bad cops. During the mitigation case at the selection phase, defense counsel presented Davis's incarceration records for the previous eleven years (from his arrest in 1994 to his 2005 re-sentencing). Davis and Hardy were sentenced to death; Causey, to life imprisonment. Without an opportunity to provide input into the correct answer, he argues, the jury was misled. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing in May 2001, during which it heard testimony from Williams, his attorney, and the assistant U.S. attorney from whom Williams's attorney requested a plea agreement. Davis's substantial rights were not affected such that a reversal of his sentences is warranted. As the district court held, victim-impact evidence has been upheld as constitutional. Special Agent Juan Jackson, the undercover FBI agent acting as a drug dealer, testified that Davis was a leader in what he thought was a major drug operation and increased his responsibilities in the operation in a few months' time span. You have permission to edit this article. Davis alleges eight points of error in the re-sentencing hearings. On cross-examination, Williams reiterated that he did not have an agreement with the Government. Among other comments, the prosecutor told jurors that Davis was basically the Godfather on the street to a hit squad. The prosecutor also said: He was protecting Hardy and Causey who were killing people and referred to Hardy and Causey as Davis's murdering, drug-dealing friends. According to the prosecutor, Davis made sure the coast was clear so Hardy and Causey can go do drive-bys. Jackson, 549 F.3d at 974-75 (testimony); Causey, 185 F.3d at 418-19 (arguments). Under this or the plain error standard, Davis's claim fails..FN4. United States v. Hardy, 34 F. App'x 962 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Accordingly, Davis's substantial rights were not affected such that reversal of his sentence is warranted. Q. Now, you pleaded guilty just about a year ago. The victim-impact testimony here did not violate Davis's due process rights. Defense counsel used these words after requesting permission from the district court to lead the witness. Causey was an associate of both Hardy and Davis. Most of the victims, police said, were African-American women involved in drugs and prostitution. FN4. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Davis and Williams spotted Groves near her home. Even if the argument were not waived, it would be unavailing on the merits. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490; Ring, 536 U.S. at 609. The fact is so reprehensible it demands a sentence of death. The investigation ended prematurely after Justice Department officials were shown evidence that Davis ordered Groves' murder. In a conversation at 10:43 p.m., Davis is quoted as saying to Hardy: "I got the phone on and the radio. On several occasions, Len Davis answered calls for assistance from fellow officers who were being shot at and assisted in apprehension of the suspects, putting his own life in danger to save the lives of his fellow officers. Davis has been suspended by the Police Department. At the first stage of the sentencing phase, the jury was charged to decide whether an FDPA death qualifying factor existed for either Davis or Hardy. FN15. This is the account described in the documents: Shortly after Davis found out about the brutality complaint against him, he is quoted as muttering to himself as he dialed Hardy's beeper, "I can get P to come and do that whore now and then we can handle the 30." at 421-23. We have defined future dangerousness as evidence that a defendant is likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future that would be a threat to the lives and safety of others. Bernard, 299 F.3d at 482. October 13th would see Officer Davis, in a police cruiser and in uniform, begin the hunt for Miss Groves with his partner Sammie Williams riding shotgun. 3592. In this case, admitting Williams's and Duncan's testimony regarding Hardy's reputation as a killer was not plain error. The arrests stem from a 10-month federal probe of police corruption that is expected to result in charges against as many as 11 other officers who allegedly were involved in large-scale drug trafficking, sources said. Substantial planning requires a considerable amount of planning preceding the killing. He said, Yeah. Davis and Williams then drove to Groves's neighborhood in their NOPD patrol car and searched for her. In determining whether the jury instructions impermissibly limited consideration of mitigating evidence, an appellate court must ask whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jurors understood the challenged instructions to preclude consideration of relevant mitigating evidence proffered by [the defendant]. Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 279 (1998) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 386 (1990)). WebRest in heavenly peace on this your 25 anniversary in heaven. The remarks were drawn from evidence in the record and could be inferred from the evidence the jury heard. Larry Preston Williams Sr. was a police officer in New Orleans in the late 1960s and 1970s. On these facts, however, length of incarceration without violence is not dispositive to the issue of whether Davis is a threat of future dangerousness while imprisoned. Further, the Government did not mention Poonie during any other point in the trial, and did not argue about Poonie or his war with Hardy in summation. The investigation was launched in December 1993 when 5th District officers Len Davis and Sammie Williams began extorting bribes and offering protection to a drug However, the cases Davis cites in support of this argument are distinguishable. Well, you know because you hear confirmation or corroboration of his testimony during the conversation between the defendant and his drug dealing, murdering friend, Paul Hardy, on Government's Exhibit LD-9.8. The investigation was launched in December 1993 when 5th District officers Len Davis and Sammie Williams began extorting bribes and offering protection to a drug dealer, said New Orleans FBI Commander Neil Gallagher. D.Although Len Davis can distinguish right from wrong and deserves to be held accountable for his actions, his behavior was negatively impacted by the stress of working in a high crime area, being shot at on numerous occasions, including on one occasion being shot in the stomach while coming to the assistance of fellow officers. 242 and 2; and (3) willfully killing Groves to prevent her communications to a law enforcement officer regarding a possible federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. [8], In 1994, Davis beat a young man in New Orleans, mistaking him for a suspect in a police officer's shooting. The records showed that Davis had two minor disciplinary incidents for most of his incarceration (possession of an unauthorized newspaper and failure to submit to DNA testing). But see United States v. McWaine, 243 F.3d 871, 873-74 (5th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (applying the two-step analysis where the defendant did not object to prosecutor's allegedly improper remarks); United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 573-74 (5th Cir.1999) (same). Without the notification, Davis and his counsel were unable to evaluate the propriety or adequacy of the proposed supplemental charge, formulate objections, or suggest additional instructions. McDuffie, 542 F.2d at 241. The fact that Davis was not present during the selection phase when the prosecutor made the remarks, however, could have led the jury to believe that the Government was highlighting Davis's failure to apologize. 3592(c)(9).15. While the prosecutor would have done well to refrain from making certain statements, see Johnson v. Bagley, 544 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir.2008), the isolated remarks do not cast serious doubt on the correctness of the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court reiterated the standard of review in an earlier opinion involving the same Batson challenge raised in Miller-El. The net effect of the prosecutor's testifying, according to Davis, conveyed to the jury that Hardy and Davis were responsible for the difference-i.e., almost 20 homicides in 1994. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Id. Therefore, the law of the case doctrine applies to foreclose review in this appeal. (citing United States v. Murrah, 888 F.2d 24, 28 (5th Cir.1989)). Davis also challenges the prosecution's cross-examination of Dr. Thomas Streed, a former police officer and now an applied psychologist, during the second or selection phase of the re-sentencing hearing. denied, 528 U.S. 829 (1999). WebNightwatch: With Holly Monteleone, Titus Tero, Keeley Williams, Dan Flynn. FN1. Well, I'm hoping the government informs the judge of my cooperation and, as a result, he [the sentencing judge] will give me a lesser sentence than he otherwise may impose on me. Fifth, Davis claims that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes his conviction for violating both 18 U.S.C. FN12. We also determine whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Hall, 152 F.3d at 406 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 (1967)); see also 18 U.S.C. Len Davis, eight other New Orleans police officers, charged in drug sting. Other participants in the drug trafficking conspiracy are now eligible to receive reduced sentences as a result of their testimony against Mr. Davis and plea agreements with the government. Fourth, in rebuttal closing summation, the prosecutor repeatedly described Davis as evil and described defense counsel as follows: Counsel talked to you in the beginning of his closing argument about killing. 3593 (listing burden of proof for mitigating factors). 01-30656, 2001 WL 34712238, at *3 (5th Cir. The FDPA requires this court to review whether the evidence supports a special finding of the existence of an aggravating factor. There's no question that perhaps as many as 15 to 20 more officers could have been apprehended, " Jordan said. In what is being called the largest case of police corruption in the city's history, nine New Orleans officers were charged in federal court Wednesday with accepting nearly $100,000 in bribes to protect a large-scale cocaine operation run by undercover FBI agents. Review of this issue is foreclosed because Davis's conviction on both counts, based on sufficient evidence, was affirmed in his first appeal. He won't be punished at all. In what comes as the latest disgrace to the already scandal-ridden Police Department, officer Len Davis, 30, is accused of conspiring with Paul "Cool" Hardy, 27, and Damon Causey, 24, in the murder of Kim Groves, 32, in the 1300 block of Alabo Street. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. But the most reasonable reading of the district court's answer is that the jury should have considered Davis's threat of future dangerousness while imprisoned or in prison-i.e., that the terms are interchangeable, and the wording discrepancy was a clerical error. At the time he was planning the murder with Hardy and Causey, Davis was unaware that he was the target of an FBI undercover investigation into corruption in the NOPD. 10. Did you ever talk to any FBI agent who was investigating street violence for a little bit of background? The undercover investigation was so secret that even former police Superintendent Joe Orticke was not told, sources said. Davis argued this motion pro se with his back-up counsel present..FN19. During the selection phase, the Government elicited sentencing testimony from the victim's daughter, Jasmine Groves, that Davis did not deserve life imprisonment because he had not once said he was sorry, in over 11 years since the crime. Further, a violation of Section 241 or 242 that results in death still carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death-the same penalty that existed before Apprendi and Ring were decided. The court overruled Davis's objection to the instruction that, to prove premeditation, [t]here is no requirement that the government prove that the defendant deliberated for any particular period of time. The jury ultimately found this factor proven beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the two counts of conviction. Q. A corrupt lieutenant in the homicide division is threatened by the righteous DA while trying to solve a string of mysterious murders. FN6. You only go to jail if you were the gunman. 3592(b) (The jury may consider whether any other aggravating factor for which notice has been given exists.). The prosecutor also stated:Do not confuse mercy with weakness. First, the Government resubmitted the evidence presented in the first or eligibility phase that proved Davis acted with specific intent and after substantial planning and meditation, resulting in Groves's death. 3593(a). Has the government-have I or any government attorney promised you anything? We also vacated Davis's and Hardy's death sentences as to all three counts because the jury did not make separate recommendations concerning the appropriate penalty for each count of the conviction. The district court corrected this error: [Y]our convictions were affirmed. In Lesko v. Lehman, 925 F.2d 1527 (3d Cir.1991), for example, the defendant testified regarding biographical information in the mitigation phase, and the prosecutor impermissibly used that testimony to argue that he should have said more, including that he was sorry. Gallagher said the yearlong investigation involved more than 60 federal agents from across the country and was conducted with utmost secrecy. A rookie New Orleans police officer is forced to balance her identity as a black woman after she witnesses two corrupt cops committing murder. Duncan further testified about a conversation that he and Davis had about Hardy during a 1994 cookout at Davis's house: [DUNCAN]: Len Davis got on the phone and he told the individual on the phone, yeah, yeah, I'm home, yeah, it's just me, Dunc and Lemmie [Rodgers, another police officer], yeah, just come on over. Police officers put their lives at risk every day in the line of duty. Specifically, Davis argues that Miller-El v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 231 (2005) and Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 US. Well, other than the fact that it is considerably higher than the other eight districts, no. United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775, 796-97 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that testimony of six victim-impact witnesses was not overwhelming where witnesses explained the impact of the victim's murder on their lives and defendant presented mitigation witnesses). In drafting the jury instructions and verdict forms, the district court condensed the individual factors to seven categories of mitigating factors that were submitted to the jury with the instruction that they were to indicate the number of jurors who find the factor established by a preponderance of the evidence as to each count of the conviction. Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 797 (2001). The city of New Orleans had to endure the reign of terror of Len Davis and the murderers he was protecting. And he said, oh, that's Paul. Hardy replied he was on [his] way. Williams's shift ended at that point, and he left Davis with the patrol car. A few minutes later, Groves died after being shot once in the head. Davis paged Hardy. Accordingly, we remanded Davis's and Hardy's cases for re-sentencing. The jury selected the death penalty. And justice can only be had by sentencing Len Davis to death. FN3. Therefore, we affirm the jury's finding on the future dangerousness factor. Davis does not and cannot argue that this issue falls within the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine; therefore, review is foreclosed. Even if there was an undisclosed agreement-for example, if the offer of witness protection can be considered an agreement-Davis still cannot show a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Severns, 559 F.3d at 278.