USA v. Cloud et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:20-CR-00385-RJC-DCK
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the defendant’s post-verdict
Motions for a Judgment of Acquittal or for a New Trial, (Doc. Nos. 265, 266), the
government’s response, (Doc. No. 270), and related pleadings.
I. BACKGROUND
The defendant proceeded to jury trial on a charge of conspiracy to distribute a
mixture and substance containing Eutylone, a Schedule I controlled substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Doc. No. 93: Indictment at 1-2). At the close of the
government’s proof, the Court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of
acquittal under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
defendant elected to present evidence and the government called one witness in
rebuttal. The jury found the defendant guilty. (Doc. No. 260: Verdict).
II. DISCUSSION
The instant motions seek judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c), or, in the
alternative, new trial under Rule 33. Under Rule 29, a guilty verdict must be
sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
the verdict is supported by substantial evidence,” that is, evidence which a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate to support the defendant’s guilt
USA )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
KENNETH JEROME WATKINS (9) )
)
Case 3:20-cr-00385-MEO-DCK Document 293 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 5

2
beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 334 (4th Cir.
2018). Under Rule 33, a new trial can be ordered if required in the interest of
justice, but “a jury verdict is not to be overturned except in the rare circumstance
where the evidence weighs heavily against it.” Id. at 340 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The defendant argues that the government failed to establish that he was
aware of and joined the alleged conspiracy. (Doc. No. 267: Memorandum at 6). The
government counters that co-conspirator testimony, intercepted phone calls, and
cell phone location data support the jury’s verdict. (Doc. No. 270: Response at 2-5).
The evidence presented at trial centered around two trips by drug couriers to
Atlanta. Jonquilla Sanders testified that co-conspirator Steven Cloud sent her from
Charlotte to meet with the defendant in Atlanta on or about October 16, 2020. The
defendant gave her a box which she delivered to Cloud. She believed pills were in
the box because Cloud sent her to get pills from another person in Atlanta in the
summer of 2020, and he told her this trip would be “the same thing.”
Other evidence corroborated her testimony. Intercepted phone calls
connected Cloud, Sanders, and the defendant before and during the trip, with Cloud
directing her not to deal with anyone but the defendant and the defendant directing
her to a secondary location because he didn’t have “it” at the club where they first
met. Cell phone location data recorded the proximity of her phone and the
defendant’s at the time she said they were meeting for the exchange. Additionally,
Case 3:20-cr-00385-MEO-DCK Document 293 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 5

3
Cloud sent “Reggie” to travel with Sanders because, according to her own
admission, she could not be trusted with pills.
Letisha Anderson testified during the defendant’s case. She admitted being
sent by Cloud from Charlotte to meet with the defendant on or about October 24,
2020, at his music studio in Atlanta and being found with a box of pills1 during the
return trip. However, she explained that she had only obtained cash from the
defendant and that another person had given her the box of pills. The defendant’s
wife and a woman who worked for him each testified during his case that they saw
Anderson receive a box from a man at a gas station near the defendant’s music
studio. The jury may have chosen to believe Anderson in part and disbelieve in
part, along with disbelieving the other defense witnesses, considering text messages
among Cloud, Anderson, and the defendant indicate she was being sent to retrieve
pills. Accordingly, in light most favorable to the government, the Court finds that
substantial evidence was presented at the trial from which a reasonable juror could
find the defendant guilty of the charged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and
that the evidence does not weigh heavily against the verdict.
B. Jury Instruction
The defendant argues that the Court erroneously failed to define fully the
term “reasonable doubt.” (Doc. No. 267: Memorandum at 8-9). During the trial, the
defendant requested the following instruction:2
1 The nearly 9,000 pills were tested and found to contain Eutylone.
2 The defendant cited 1.05 Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, but did not specify
which Circuit or author published the proposed instruction.
Case 3:20-cr-00385-MEO-DCK Document 293 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 5

4
REASONABLE DOUBT
The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require a defendant to
prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The government
has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly
convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There are few things in this world
that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law
does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. It is only
required that the government’s proof exclude any “reasonable doubt”
concerning the defendant’s guilt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based
on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration
of all the evidence in the case. If, based on your consideration of the
evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the
crime charged, you must find him guilty. If on the other hand, you
think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him
the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.
(Doc. No. 259). The Court denied the request and instructed the jury:
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND REASONABLE DOUBT
Every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent,
and this presumption continues throughout the course of the trial.
This presumption will end only if you reach the jury room and arrive
unanimously at the conclusion, if you do, that the government has
shown to your satisfaction that the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. This burden on the government does not change at
any time during the course of the trial. The presumption of innocence
in favor of a defendant is not a mere formality to be disregarded by the
jury at its pleasure. It is a substantive part of our criminal law.
Accordingly, the government must prove each of the elements of the
crime charged in this indictment beyond a reasonable doubt before
there can be a conviction.
REASONABLE DOUBT
The term “reasonable doubt” means just what it says. It is a
doubt based upon reason and common sense. Its meaning is no doubt
self-evident and understood by you, and the Court will not attempt to
define the term further.
Case 3:20-cr-00385-MEO-DCK Document 293 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 5

5
The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly admonished trial courts not to
define reasonable doubt. United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 298 (4th
Cir. 1998). This Court’s instructions were substantially similar to those
approved in Williams. Therefore, this issue is without merit and a new trial
is not required in the interest of justice.
III. CONCLUSION
Having considered the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal or new
trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court
finds that substantial evidence supports the conviction and that a new trial is not in
the interest of justice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant’s Motions, (Doc. Nos.
265, 266), are DENIED.
Signed: November 15, 2022
Case 3:20-cr-00385-MEO-DCK Document 293 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 5