21-1459-cr United States v. Cherry UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of January, two thousand twenty-four.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge.∗ _____________________________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v. No. 21-1459-cr
Latique Johnson, Ines Sanchez, AKA Meth, Donnell Murray, AKA Don P, Thomas Morton, AKA 10 Stacks, Saeed Kaid, AKA O-Dog, Eric Grayson, AKA
∗Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Gistol, Marques Cannon, AKA Paper Boy, Manuel Rosario, AKA Top Dolla, Michael Evans, AKA Puff, Terrell Pinkney, Patrick Daly, Brandon Green, AKA Light, AKA Moneywell,
Defendants,
David Cherry, AKA Showtime,
Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: DANIEL S. NOOTER, Washington, DC.
FOR APPELLEE: ALLISON NICHOLS (Andrew K. Chan, Jessica Feinstein, Daniel C. Richenthal, on the briefs), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Gardephe, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2 Defendant-Appellant David Cherry appeals from a June 9, 2021 judgment
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Gardephe, J.) convicting him pursuant to a guilty plea of brandishing a firearm in
furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and
sentencing him to 120 months of imprisonment. Cherry argues that, during
sentencing, the district court improperly allowed Ralph Turane, a potentially
exculpatory witness, to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination and refuse to testify at a Fatico hearing concerning Cherry’s
involvement in a gang-related shooting. The district court held that Turane had
reason to fear that answering questions about the shooting could tend to implicate
him in the event and expose him to future prosecution. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the remaining underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on
appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
We review a sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error, United States
v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882, 883 (2d Cir. 1997), while reviewing questions of law with
respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege de novo, United States v. Greenfield, 831
F.3d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2016).
As relevant here, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-
3 incrimination “not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a
conviction under a criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would
furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a
crime.” United States v. Stewart, 907 F.3d 677, 684 (2d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). For
the privilege to apply, “it need only be evident . . . that a responsive answer . . .
might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result,” a determination
the district court should make “as much by his or her personal perception of the
peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).
However, “the privilege’s protection extends only to witnesses who have
reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Ohio v. Reiner, 532
U.S. 17, 21 (2001) (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Edgerton, 734 F.2d
913, 921 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting that “[t]he potential for self-incrimination must be
a ‘real danger’”) (quoting Zicarelli v. N.J. State Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472,
480 (1972)).
Turane invoked the privilege during a Fatico hearing the district court held
to determine Cherry’s involvement in a particular gang-related shooting, which it
wished to take into consideration in sentencing Cherry. In brief, on or around the
night of April 3, 2009, Thomas Morton and Cherry, both members of the Blood
4 Hound Brims gang, picked up both Saeed Kaid (also a member of the gang) and
Turane in a car before driving out of New York City. They drove into
Westchester County before stopping by the side of the road, where Kaid was told
to get out of the car, was shot, and was left for dead. Before Cherry’s sentencing,
Turane provided an unsworn account of the events to a defense investigator, in
which he stated that he got into the car thinking that it was going to a party and in
which he minimized Cherry’s role in the shooting. At Cherry’s Fatico hearing,
however, Turane invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer
questions about the shooting. The district court later rejected Turane’s account of
the shooting given in the unsworn interview as unreliable and considered
Cherry’s key role in the shooting in its sentencing.
The district court held that testimony from Turane “about the circumstances
of him being in the car present[ed] a significant risk of incrimination” sufficient to
support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and we agree. App’x
224. As the district court summarized, it may be that Turane was only in the car
because he thought he was getting a ride to a party, but it may also be the case that
there is a less innocent explanation for his presence in the vehicle. Either way—
given that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a
5 wrongdoer” may lead to self-incrimination, Reiner, 532 U.S. at 21—Turane
reasonably feared a real danger of future prosecution from testifying about his
involvement in the events of that night.
Cherry argues that Turane could not have reasonably feared prosecution,
because any charge from the events of April 3, 2009 would be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. As the district court explained, though, the
shooting of Kaid was part of a swath of gang activity that the government had
charged as a broad racketeering conspiracy. That conspiracy, if proven, would
be presumed to exist until there is an affirmative showing that it was terminated
and so the statute of limitations would “not begin to run until the objectives of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
21-1459-cr United States v. Cherry UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of January, two thousand twenty-four.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge.∗ _____________________________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v. No. 21-1459-cr
Latique Johnson, Ines Sanchez, AKA Meth, Donnell Murray, AKA Don P, Thomas Morton, AKA 10 Stacks, Saeed Kaid, AKA O-Dog, Eric Grayson, AKA
∗Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Gistol, Marques Cannon, AKA Paper Boy, Manuel Rosario, AKA Top Dolla, Michael Evans, AKA Puff, Terrell Pinkney, Patrick Daly, Brandon Green, AKA Light, AKA Moneywell,
Defendants,
David Cherry, AKA Showtime,
Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: DANIEL S. NOOTER, Washington, DC.
FOR APPELLEE: ALLISON NICHOLS (Andrew K. Chan, Jessica Feinstein, Daniel C. Richenthal, on the briefs), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Gardephe, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2 Defendant-Appellant David Cherry appeals from a June 9, 2021 judgment
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Gardephe, J.) convicting him pursuant to a guilty plea of brandishing a firearm in
furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and
sentencing him to 120 months of imprisonment. Cherry argues that, during
sentencing, the district court improperly allowed Ralph Turane, a potentially
exculpatory witness, to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination and refuse to testify at a Fatico hearing concerning Cherry’s
involvement in a gang-related shooting. The district court held that Turane had
reason to fear that answering questions about the shooting could tend to implicate
him in the event and expose him to future prosecution. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the remaining underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on
appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
We review a sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error, United States
v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882, 883 (2d Cir. 1997), while reviewing questions of law with
respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege de novo, United States v. Greenfield, 831
F.3d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2016).
As relevant here, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-
3 incrimination “not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a
conviction under a criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would
furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a
crime.” United States v. Stewart, 907 F.3d 677, 684 (2d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). For
the privilege to apply, “it need only be evident . . . that a responsive answer . . .
might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result,” a determination
the district court should make “as much by his or her personal perception of the
peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).
However, “the privilege’s protection extends only to witnesses who have
reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Ohio v. Reiner, 532
U.S. 17, 21 (2001) (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Edgerton, 734 F.2d
913, 921 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting that “[t]he potential for self-incrimination must be
a ‘real danger’”) (quoting Zicarelli v. N.J. State Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472,
480 (1972)).
Turane invoked the privilege during a Fatico hearing the district court held
to determine Cherry’s involvement in a particular gang-related shooting, which it
wished to take into consideration in sentencing Cherry. In brief, on or around the
night of April 3, 2009, Thomas Morton and Cherry, both members of the Blood
4 Hound Brims gang, picked up both Saeed Kaid (also a member of the gang) and
Turane in a car before driving out of New York City. They drove into
Westchester County before stopping by the side of the road, where Kaid was told
to get out of the car, was shot, and was left for dead. Before Cherry’s sentencing,
Turane provided an unsworn account of the events to a defense investigator, in
which he stated that he got into the car thinking that it was going to a party and in
which he minimized Cherry’s role in the shooting. At Cherry’s Fatico hearing,
however, Turane invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer
questions about the shooting. The district court later rejected Turane’s account of
the shooting given in the unsworn interview as unreliable and considered
Cherry’s key role in the shooting in its sentencing.
The district court held that testimony from Turane “about the circumstances
of him being in the car present[ed] a significant risk of incrimination” sufficient to
support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and we agree. App’x
224. As the district court summarized, it may be that Turane was only in the car
because he thought he was getting a ride to a party, but it may also be the case that
there is a less innocent explanation for his presence in the vehicle. Either way—
given that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a
5 wrongdoer” may lead to self-incrimination, Reiner, 532 U.S. at 21—Turane
reasonably feared a real danger of future prosecution from testifying about his
involvement in the events of that night.
Cherry argues that Turane could not have reasonably feared prosecution,
because any charge from the events of April 3, 2009 would be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. As the district court explained, though, the
shooting of Kaid was part of a swath of gang activity that the government had
charged as a broad racketeering conspiracy. That conspiracy, if proven, would
be presumed to exist until there is an affirmative showing that it was terminated
and so the statute of limitations would “not begin to run until the objectives of the
conspiracy have been either achieved or abandoned.” United States v. Eppolito,
543 F.3d 25, 48–49 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Cherry counters that Turane
was not a member of his gang, but the government would not need to prove
Turane’s formal membership to charge him as a conspirator. It would only need
to show that he “embraced the objective of the alleged conspiracy and agreed to
commit predicate acts in furtherance thereof.” United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d
72, 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).
Notwithstanding the time that had elapsed since the shooting of Kaid,
6 Turane faced a real danger of self-incrimination if he were to testify at the Fatico
hearing regarding his involvement in the shooting. The district court thus
correctly held that Turane could rely on the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing
to testify about the shooting.
Cherry devotes most of his briefing on appeal not to challenging that
conclusion but to arguing against reasoning the district court did not adopt. In
explaining Turane’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, his lawyer
expressed Turane’s main concern to the court during a sidebar exchange as
follows: “We believe that the biggest problem is that the government has
represented that they believe that the information in that transcript [of Turane’s
earlier, unsworn account] is contrary to what they believe the truth is.” App’x
222–23. She also added, “I don’t want to subject my client to a potential charge of
perjury.” Id. at 223. Based only on that remark, Cherry argues that the district
court allowed Turane to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege out of a fear of
being prosecuted for perjury if he were to testify. He further argues that the
privilege does not protect witnesses whose only fear of future prosecution is for
perjury from testifying, as other circuits have held. See United States v. Allmon,
594 F.3d 981, 986–87 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1192
7 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Whittington, 783 F.2d 1210, 1218 (5th Cir. 1986).
The problem for Cherry is that this is simply not what the district court held.
Rather, as explained above, the court perceived that Turane could face criminal
exposure from his presence in the car with Kaid and at Kaid’s shooting.
Cherry claims that the district court could only allow the assertion of the
privilege on the grounds advanced by Turane’s counsel, relying on United States
v. Bowe, 698 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1983). But Bowe does not support this proposition.
Rather, in Bowe, this Court simply held that it is the witness who must invoke the
privilege. There, we remanded because the district court applied the privilege
sua sponte after a witness expressed reluctance to testify without ever actually
invoking the Fifth Amendment or stating that she feared future prosecution. See
id. at 565–66. Cherry conflates the fact that the witness must claim the privilege
with the idea that the witness must supply the exact rationale underpinning the
court’s acceptance of the claim. He cites no authority for the latter proposition,
and it is undisputed that here Turane did assert his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Moreover, in context, it is not as clear as Cherry suggests that Turane’s
counsel expressed a concern only about a potential perjury charge. She advised
the court of her concern that the government believed Turane’s earlier account of
8 the Kaid shooting was not truthful. The obvious implication of that is that
Turane’s innocent explanation for why he was in the car might not be accurate (or
at least not believed by the government) and that truthful testimony might paint a
different picture of his potential involvement in Kaid’s shooting. The court
followed this implication in pinpointing the real Fifth Amendment concern in
these circumstances.
In sum, the district court did not allow Turane to rely on the Fifth
Amendment privilege solely to protect against potential perjury prosecution from
the testimony Cherry wished to elicit from him. The court concluded that Turane
could assert the privilege because there was a reasonable basis for him to fear that
testifying about Kaid’s shooting could implicate him in that shooting and, at a
minimum, “furnish a link in the chain of evidence” needed to prosecute him for
involvement in it. Stewart, 907 F.3d at 684 (citation omitted). We see no error in
that conclusion.
* * *
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court