USA v. Lee, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 19-204
TIM JACKSON 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Tim Jackson’s Motion in Opposition to the
Government’s Notice of Intent to Admit Intrinsic and “Other Act” Evidence
(Doc. 1657). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of alleged gang activity by a criminal organization
known as the “Byrd Gang” in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, beginning
on a date unknown but prior to January 2014 through the date of the Second
Superseding Indictment in August 2021. Ten defendants were charged in the
Second 	Superseding 	Indictment. 	Only 	Tim 	Jackson 	remains 	for 	trial.1
Defendant Jackson is charged with participating in a Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) conspiracy, a drug trafficking conspiracy,
1 Three of the defendants were tried in an earlier jury trial. The remaining pleaded
guilty.
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 8

2
and a firearms conspiracy. The RICO charge lists 50 Overt Acts, including
instances of drug distribution, firearm possession, arrests, shootings, and
murders. The Government alleges that the Byrd Gang controlled the drug
trade in a certain area of the city through various acts of violence.
On November 12, 2025, the Government noticed its intent to introduce
at trial evidence of four distinct events involving Defendant, arguing that the
evidence is intrinsic to the charges, but if not, is admissible as extrinsic
evidence of other acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).2 The Government
also noticed its intent to introduce a fifth event that it contends is admissible
as extrinsic evidence of other acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
Defendant opposes the introduction of this evidence at trial. This Court will
discuss each event in turn.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. Intrinsic Evidence
The Government alleges that the first four events at issue are intrinsic
to the crimes charged and therefore admissible without reference to Rule
404(b).3 “It is well established that where a conspiracy is charged, acts that are
not alleged in the indictment may be admissible as part of the Government’s
proof.”4 The Fifth Circuit has held “that the government is not limited to overt
acts pleaded in proving a conspiracy. It may show other acts of the conspirators
2 Doc. 954.
3 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that extrinsic “evidence of a crime, wrong,
or other act,” though not admissible to prove character, “may be admissible for another
purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
4 United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 785 (5th Cir. 2009).
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 8

3
occurring during the life of the conspiracy.”5 “Acts committed in furtherance of
the charged conspiracy are themselves part of the act charged. Thus, evidence
of such acts constitutes intrinsic evidence—that is, direct evidence of the
charged conspiracy itself.”6 In addition, “[e]vidence is intrinsic to a conspiracy
if it is relevant to establish how the conspiracy came about, how it was
structured, and how the appellant became a member.”7 “Evidence of acts other
than conduct related to the offense is intrinsic when the evidence of the other
act and the evidence of the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined’ or both
acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or the other acts were ‘necessary
preliminaries’ to the crime charged.”8 With this in mind, the Court considers
each event at issue.
A. Murder of Emanuel Garner
First, the Government noticed its intent to introduce evidence that
Defendant murdered Emanuel Garner on May 15, 2007. According to witness
testimony to be introduced at trial, Defendant admitted to shooting Garner, a
fellow member of the Byrd Gang, after other Byrd Gang members decided
Garner had to be killed for his disrespectful behavior. This Court agrees with
the Government that this evidence is intrinsic to the RICO and firearm
conspiracy charges. The event is direct evidence of the use of violence by the
criminal enterprise and Jackson’s role as a gunman for the enterprise. Further,
the fact that this incident occurred in 2007 is of no moment. The conspiracy
alleged in the Second Superseding Indictment began “at a time unknown, but
5 United States v. Quesada, 512 F.2d 1043, 1046 (5th Cir. 1975).
6 United States v. Mendoza-Alarcon, 140 F. App’x 529, 534 (5th Cir. 2005).
7 Watkins, 591 F.3d at 784.
8 United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2005).
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 8

4
prior to January 2014.” In addition, the Fifth Circuit has held that evidence of
prior 	events 	may 	be 	admissible 	as 	intrinsic 	evidence 	where, 	as 	here, 	it
establishes “how the conspiracy was structured and operated.”9 Here, the date
of the incident establishes the continuous, long-standing nature of the Byrd
Gang and Defendant’s involvement with it. Evidence of the Garner murder is
admissible as intrinsic evidence.
B. Cocaine Conviction
Next, the Government noticed its intention to introduce the fact that
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in Orleans Parish Criminal
Court on March 7, 2008. The Government contends that this charge is intrinsic
to Count 2, which charges Defendant with conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute multiple drugs including cocaine. However, the Government has not
provided this Court with any facts surrounding this conviction, including the
quantity of drugs that Defendant possessed. This Court therefore cannot say
that Defendant’s simple cocaine possession is intrinsic to the conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute.10 	Further, the Government has not argued
that the conviction is admissible for any particular purpose under Rule 404(b).
Accordingly, 	without 	more, 	the 	Court 	finds 	Defendant’s 	2008 	cocaine
possession conviction inadmissible.
9 Watkins, 591 F.3d at 785.
10 “A jury could properly infer an intent to distribute from evidence of possession of
one drug in a distributable quantity.” United States v. Cockrell, 587 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir.
2009) (emphasis added); see United States v. Williams, No. CR 19-204, 2025 WL 605061, at
*2 (E.D. La. Feb. 25, 2025) (finding heroin possession charge intrinsic to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute where the defendant was found with “six grams of heroin concealed
in his underwear and admitted to police that he was present at the location to make a drug
sale”).
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 8

5
C. Murder of Arthur Cunningham
The 	Government 	noticed 	its 	intention 	to 	introduce 	evidence 	of
Defendant’s involvement in the murder of Arthur Cunningham on February
26, 2010. The Government contends that witness testimony will show that
Defendant was driving a car from which his co-conspirator shot and killed
Cunningham, who was riding his bike. In addition, it will show that Defendant
was driving the same vehicle the next day when he was shot in the back and
rendered paraplegic. Again, this evidence is intrinsic to the RICO and firearms
charges. The events are direct evidence of the use of violence by the criminal
enterprise to promote fear and conduct the affairs of the enterprise, as well as
Defendant’s role in the organization.
D. Manslaughter Conviction
Finally, the Government noticed its intent to introduce evidence that
Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the murder of Cunningham on
January 	9, 	2012. 	This 	evidence 	is 	intrinsic 	to 	the 	RICO 	and 	firearms
conspiracy charges for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Defendant’s
conviction is direct evidence of the crimes charged.
II. Extrinsic Evidence
The Government also noticed its intention to introduce evidence of an
additional event pursuant to Rule 404(b). The Government contends that
Defendant was involved in the murder of Brandon Barnes on April 8, 2008. On
that date, Defendant and other members of the Byrd Gang shot at members of
a rival gang, killing Barnes. Barnes had Defendant’s number saved in his
phone 	and 	had 	communicated 	with 	Defendant 	prior 	to 	the 	shooting.
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 8

6
Defendant’s number pinged from a cell tower seven blocks from the scene of
the 	murder 	immediately 	before 	the 	murder. 	An 	eyewitness 	identified
Defendant as one of the shooters from a photographic lineup. Defendant was
arrested and charged with second degree murder and attempted second degree
murder for Barnes’s killing. After a one-day jury trial, he was found not guilty.
The Government seeks to introduce this evidence under Rule 404(b) to show
Defendant’s intent and state of mind in the charged conspiracy offenses,
including the overt acts that allege Defendant’s involvement in the murders of
Kent Franklin and Javon Johnigan.
Rule 404(b) provides that extrinsic “evidence of a crime, wrong, or other
act,” though not admissible to prove character, “may be admissible for another
purpose, 	such 	as 	proving 	motive, 	opportunity, 	intent, 	preparation, 	plan,
knowledge, 	identity, 	absence 	of 	mistake, 	or 	lack 	of 	accident.”11 	“It 	is
unnecessary that the extrinsic evidence fit neatly under one of the exceptions
listed in Rule 404(b), as this list is not exhaustive.”12 	The following test, as
articulated in United States v. Beechum, must be satisfied for evidence to be
admissible under Rule 404(b):
First, it must be determined that the extrinsic offense evidence is
relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character. Second,
the 	evidence 	must 	possess 	probative 	value 	that 	is 	not
substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice.13
Here, the first prong is easily satisfied. Evidence of the Barnes murder is
relevant to Defendant’s state of mind and intent as to the charged crimes. “The
11 FED. R. EVID. 404(b).
12 United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 131 (5th Cir. 2012).
13 Id. at 132 (quoting United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978)).
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 8

7
mere entry of a not guilty plea in a conspiracy case raises the issue of intent
sufficiently to justify the admissibility of extrinsic offense evidence.”14 “In other
words, where the prior offense involved the same intent required to prove the
charged offense, that prior offense is relevant and [the court is] required only
to consider whether the requirements of Rule 403 are met under Beechum’s
second prong.”15
To determine whether the evidence satisfies the second Beechum prong,
a court must consider the extent to which the defendant’s unlawful intent is
established by the other evidence, the overall similarity of the extrinsic and
charged evidence, and how much time separates the extrinsic and charged
offenses.16 As discussed above, there are at least two other murders that are
intrinsic to the conspiracy that show Defendant’s intent and state of mind for
the 	murders 	of 	Franklin 	and 	Johnigan 	charged 	as 	overt 	acts. 	Further,
Defendant’s involvement in the Barnes murder is dissimilar to his involvement
in the Franklin and Johnigan murders in which Defendant was not the
triggerman, but rather directed other members of the Byrd Gang to commit
the murders.17 Finally, the Franklin and Johnigan murders occurred in 2016—
eight years after the Barnes murder. For all these reasons, the Barnes murder
is not overly probative of the Franklin and Johnigan 	murders. Further,
because Defendant was found not guilty of the Barnes murder, the Court finds
14 United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 536 (5th Cir. 2017).
15 United States v. Cockrell, 587 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009).
16 Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
17 Overt act 19 states that on or about July 18, 2016, defendants Ernest Thomas,
Samuel Morton, and Terran Williams shot and killed Kent Franklin. Doc. 415. Overt act 20
states that on or about September 3, 2016, defendant, Tim Jackson directed members of the
Byrd Gang to shoot and kill Javon Johnigan.
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 7 of 8

8
that the introduction of that evidence would be prejudicial and confusing to the
jury. Accordingly, this Court finds that evidence of Defendant’s alleged
involvement in the Barnes murder is not admissible under Rule 404(b) and is
more prejudicial than probative.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART as outlined herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 24th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1665 Filed 11/24/25 Page 8 of 8