USA v. Eldridge et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER
v. 	9-CR-329-A
THAMUD ELDRIDGE,
Defendant.
Defendant Thamud Eldridge has filed a pro se motion to recuse this Court
(Dkt. No. 994). The Government filed a response in opposition (Dkt. No. 996), and
Defendant filed an unscheduled “addendum”/reply papers (Dkt. No. 997). For the
reasons stated herein, Defendant’s motion to recuse is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Briefly, Defendant is pending resentencing upon a Second Circuit Mandate
(Dkt. No. 939), issued April 20, 2023, remanding the case after vacating his jury trial
conviction on Count Seven of the operative indictment (possessing and brandishing
a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence)—and otherwise affirming his jury trial
conviction on Counts One through Six (RICO; conspiracy to commit RICO;
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, controlled
substances; possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;
kidnapping in aid of racketeering; and Hobbs Act robbery).
The Court reappointed defense counsel, who represented Defendant at his
original sentencing, for the resentencing. The resentencing was scheduled for
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 6

2
November 9, 2023. On November 4, 2023, the Government filed its sentencing
submissions and asked the Court to impose a life sentence due to Defendant’s
purported role in the murders of Sam Jones, Jr. a/k/a Smokey, and Thedrus Laster
a/k/a Flap, which the Government argued it proved at trial by a preponderance of the
evidence. The jury hung on original Count Thirteen (charging the murder of Jones in
aid of racketeering) and reached a not-guilty verdict on original Count Ten (charging
the murder of Laster in aid of racketeering).
Due to the length of the trial transcript and defense counsel’s indication that
he lacked support staff to formulate a response to the Government’s request for a
life sentence, the Court adjourned the sentencing and appointed a second defense
attorney to assist with the resentencing. In addition to and in relation to the dispute
regarding the two murders, which has now been fully briefed (see Dkt. Nos. 958,
961, 990, 993), the parties also disagree on the application of a new amendment to
United States Sentencing Commission Guideline § 1B1.3, pertaining to acquitted
conduct (see Dkt. Nos. 990, 993).
The day before a status conference to schedule oral argument on these
unresolved resentencing issues, Defendant filed the instant motion to recuse the
Court. The motion was filed pro se, with Defendant’s two appointed attorneys
indicating they “do not join in [the] motion[.]” Dkt. No. 994, p. 1. As the Court
recalls, the Government asked for the motion to be stricken from the record,
asserting Defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. The Court ordered the
Government to respond to the motion, noting that it had not decided whether it
would consider the motion on the merits.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 6

3
DISCUSSION
“There is certainly a right to appear pro se, as well as a right to appointed
counsel. Obviously, however, those rights cannot be both exercised at the same
time.” Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072, 1075 (2d Cir. 1977) (internal citations
omitted). In other words, “[a] defendant has…no right to ‘hybrid’ representation in
which he is represented by counsel but supplements his lawyer’s work with selected
pro se submissions.” United States v. Hage, 74 F.4th 90, 93 (2d Cir. 2023) (citation
omitted). “[T]he decision to grant or deny such hybrid representation lies solely
within the discretion of the trial court.” United States v. Crozier, 640 F. App’x 100,
102 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Absent a compelling reason or a showing that the interests of justice [would be]
served by a defendant’s supplementation of the legal services provided by his
retained counsel, the trial court need not permit hybrid representation.” United
States v. Wilburn, 19-CR-108 (MKB), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248199, *6 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 30, 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Second Circuit remanded this case for resentencing on all Defendant’s
remaining counts of conviction, which were affirmed after vacating his conviction on
Count Seven. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Defendant’s
recusal motion, which his assigned attorneys do not join. Defendant has not
presented any compelling reason or reason why the interests of justice would be
served by permitting him to supplement the legal services provided by his two very
experienced and able CJA panel attorneys. Defendant’s pro se motion is denied on
that basis.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 3 of 6

4
Even if the Court were to reach the merits of Defendant’s motion, denial
would be warranted. Defendant argues this Court cannot maintain the appearance
of impartiality with respect to his resentencing because of certain comments and
adverse rulings made by the Court during his trial, which he argues cumulatively
denied his right to a fair trial.
Defendant’s conviction, however, on Counts One through Six was affirmed in
all respects on appeal. See United States v. Eldridge, 2 F.4th 27 (2d Cir. 2021);
United States v. Eldridge, 860 F. App’x 773 (2d Cir. June 22, 2021) (summary
order); see also Dkt. No. 939. In addition, Defendant challenged on direct appeal
several of the evidentiary rulings he references in his motion, contentions which
were rejected by the Circuit. See Eldridge, 860 F. App’x at 778-79, 784 (rejecting
Defendant’s allegation of prosecutorial conduct concerning purportedly false and
uncorrected testimony by a witness named Jackson, and rejecting Defendant’s pro
se claim that he was deprived of a fair trial because the Court took on the role of the
prosecutor during the cross-examination of a witness named Cuyler); see also Liteky
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“Almost invariably, [judicial rulings] are
proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); United States v. Kendrick, 10-CR-
6096-FPG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107174, *11 (W.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013) (“Adverse
judicial rulings in the same or related case may not ordinarily serve as the basis for a
motion for recusal.”).
As to comments Defendant argues the Court made during his trial, as well as
in sentencing related defendant Jeffrey Mills, Defendant’s cousin, for obstruction of
justice, such comments reflected knowledge acquired by the Court in performing its
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 4 of 6

5
judicial duties, which “does not constitute grounds for disqualification.” United
States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 168 (2d Cir. 1981). Nor do the Court’s remarks
“display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; see United States v. Wedd, 993 F.3d 104, 115
(2d Cir. 2021) (“Ordinarily, Section 455(a) will not require recusal based on a judge’s
comments during a proceeding that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to,
counsel, the parties, or their cases.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted); see, e.g., Kendrick, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107174, at *13 (“At best,
counsel’s affidavit sets forth grossly conclusory allegations stating what his client
believes to be or have been this Court’s mindset and mental machinations or
processes involved in arriving at the [adverse] decision…”).
CONCLUSION
In the Court’s discretion, it will not permit hybrid representation here, and
even if it were to, Defendant has not met his “substantial burden” of demonstrating
that this Court is “not impartial.” Barnes v. Fedele, 07-CV-6197L, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 51779, *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No.
994) to recuse this Court is DENIED in all respects. The Court will not accept further
pro se motions filed by Defendant.
The parties shall appear, as previously ordered, on November 22, 2024, at
9:00 a.m., for oral argument on the Government’s request for a life sentence based
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 5 of 6

6
upon Defendant’s purported role in two murders, and the applicability of the
Sentencing Commission’s amendment to Guidelines § 1B1.3.
SO ORDERED.
_s/Richard J. Arcara_________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: 	November 22, 2024
Buffalo, New York
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 1000 Filed 11/21/24 Page 6 of 6