USA v. Eldridge et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	1:09-CR-329 RJA
DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
THAMUD ELDRIDGE,
Defendant.
_______________________________
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is defendant Thamud Eldridge’s request for a trial date as to the
outstanding Counts of the Indictment as well as defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts 16
and 17 of the Indictment on speedy trial grounds.1 	(Dkt. No. 843) 	For the following
reasons, defendant’s request for the immediate scheduling of a trial denied, and his
motion to dismiss Counts 16 and 17 of the Indictment is denied without prejudice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
The 	Indictment 	charged 	defendant 	Thamud 	Eldridge 	with 	racketeering,
racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, kidnapping in aid of racketeering,
Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and various firearms
offenses. 	(Dkt. No. 164) 	Eldridge was also charged, in Counts 16 and 17, with
possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and being a felon
in possession of a firearm. 	Counts 16 and 17 arose from an incident during which
Eldridge allegedly fired shots at City of Buffalo Police Officer Joy Jermain. 	On January
1 For purposes of the instant Decision and Order, the Court assumes the parties’ familiarities with all prior
proceedings, filings, and Decisions in this case.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 8

2
7, 2016, shortly before the trial in this case was scheduled to begin, the Court severed
Counts 16 and 17 from the remainder of the Indictment. (Dkt. No. 530) 	The primary
reasons for the severance included the Court’s finding that Assistant United States
Attorney Joseph Tripi, the lead prosecutor in the case, may have relevant testimony with
respect to Counts 16 and 17 (hereinafter referred to as the “Severed Counts”), and that
an immediate trial as to the remaining counts of the Indictment was necessary due to the
age of the case and the amount of time defendant had spent in pretrial detention. Id.
A trial of defendant Eldridge on Counts 1 through 15 of the Indictment commenced
on January 13, 2016. On February 24, 2016, the jury returned guilty verdicts on a number
of counts. However, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts, and
was thereafter discharged. 	The unresolved counts pertaining to defendant Eldridge
include: Count 11 (Hobbs Act robbery of Thedrus Laster); Count 12 (discharge of a
firearm causing the death of Thedrus Laster); Count 13 (murder of Sam Jones, Jr. in aid
of racketeering); Count 14 (Hobbs Act robbery of Sam Jones, Jr.); and Count 15
(discharge of a firearm causing the death of Sam Jones, Jr.) (hereinafter referred to as
the “Unresolved Counts”). On March 18, 2016, the Government moved to defer retrial of
defendant as to the Unresolved Counts until resolution of the appeal of the counts of
conviction. (Dkt. No. 607) The Government asserted that “based upon the lengthy prison
sentences 	and 	mandatory 	minimum 	sentences 	associated 	with 	the 	counts 	of
conviction…the Government [did] not intend to retry...the unresolved counts if the counts
of conviction [were] affirmed on appeal.” (Dkt. No. 607, pg. 4)
On April 7, 2016, defendant filed a response to the Government’s motion. (Dkt. No.
619) He opposed the Government’s request to delay a retrial of the Unresolved Counts
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 8

3
pending the outcome of the appeal of his counts of conviction. 	Id. 	Shortly thereafter,
defense counsel moved to withdraw from the case and new counsel was appointed. 	A
status conference was held on June 29, 2016, a timeline for Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions
was discussed, and dates were set for the filing of post-trial motions.
At a status conference on July 29, 2016, defense counsel indicated that instead of
waiting for the resolution of the appeal of the counts of conviction, Eldridge sought to
move forward promptly with a trial as to both the Unresolved Counts and the Severed
Counts. 	After some discussion, it was agreed that the Severed Counts should be tried
first, since the trial would be shorter and would not necessitate that Eldridge’s new
counsel review all of the previous trial transcripts. With agreement of the parties, a trial
date of January 24, 2017 was selected for the Severed Counts. On August 5, 2016, the
parties, including defendant, appeared at a status conference before the Court to discuss
the trial of the Severed Counts. At that time, Eldridge indicated, through his attorney, that
he no longer wished to move forward with a trial of the Severed Counts on January 24,
2017. 	Because he did not wish to put his family through two additional trials, Eldridge
requested that the Court return to its previously planned course of action, and specifically
wait until the resolution of post-trial motions and any appeals to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit before scheduling a joint trial for both the Unresolved
Counts and the Severed Counts. 	The Government opposed this request and indicated
that it wanted to move forward with the trial of the Severed Counts on the date of January
24, 2017.
On October 4, 2016, the Court issued a decision granting both the Government’s
motion to defer defendant’s retrial on the Unresolved Counts of the Indictment and
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 8

4
granting defendant’s request to adjourn the trial as to the Severed Counts of the
Indictment. (Dkt. No. 677) The Court found that it was in the interest of judicial economy
to defer retrial of the Unresolved Counts of the Indictment until the counts of conviction
were fully resolved. Indeed, the Government represented that if the counts of conviction
were affirmed by the Second Circuit, they would most likely not seek a retrial as to the
Unresolved Counts. Thus, the Court concluded that deferring a retrial had the potential
to benefit defendant, who may never face potential conviction as to the Unresolved
Counts, as well as the Government and the public, by saving the time and expense of
another lengthy trial. 	With respect to the Severed Counts, the Court agreed with
defendant that it was illogical to proceed on two different tracks. The Court reasoned that
since the Unresolved Counts and the Severed Counts were part of the same Indictment,
and since the Government may seek to retry the Unresolved Counts, the interests of
judicial economy and conserving Government resources favored combining the trials of
the Unresolved Counts and the Severed Counts. 	The Court likewise noted that if the
counts of conviction were affirmed, the Government may elect not to retry either the
Unresolved Counts or the Severed Counts. 	Thus, waiting for a final resolution of the
counts of conviction before proceeding as to either the Unresolved Counts or the Severed
Counts may save the defendant, the Government, and the Court, the time, energy and
expense of an additional trial.
On August 28, 2017, the Court denied defendant’s post-trial motion for a judgment
of acquittal and new trial. 	(Dkt. No. 710) 	Eldridge was later sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 600 months to be served as follows: 240 months as to each of Counts
1, 2, and 6 to be served concurrently with each other and with Counts 3 and 5; 120 months
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 8

5
as to Count 3 to be served concurrently with Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6; 240 months as to Count
5 to be served concurrently with Counts 1, 2, 3, and 6; 60 months as to Count 4 to be
served consecutively as to Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; and 300 months as to Count 7 to
be served consecutively as to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. A notice of appeal of Eldridge’s
conviction was filed with the Second Circuit. (Dkt. Nos. 792) A status conference as to
the Unresolved Counts and Severed Counts was held on January 25, 2019, at which time
it was agreed that the parties would await a decision on the appeal by the Second Circuit
before determining how best to proceed. 	Additional status conferences were held
thereafter, during which time the parties noted that the matter remained pending on
appeal.
On November 14, 2019, defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss the Severed
Counts on the basis that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.2 (Dkt. No. 843) A
status conference regarding the motion was held before the Court on December 11, 2019.
The Government argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion to
dismiss based upon Rule 12.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 	The Court
requested further briefing on the issue of jurisdiction. At a follow-up status conference on
January 28, 2019, defense counsel indicated to the Court that the motion to dismiss may
be premature and requested that the motion be held in abeyance pending further
proceedings before the Second Circuit. Thus, no additional briefing was submitted.
2 The Court notes that defendant alleges both a violation of the Speedy Trial Act and that his
constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. Time under the Speedy Trial Act has been
consistently excluded by the Court, on the record, throughout the course of this case. Defendant’s motion
does not indicate which exclusions of time he contends were improper or on what basis. During the last
status conference in this matter, the Court excluded time, for the reasons stated on the record, pursuant
to Sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 18 of the United States Code, through September
15, 2020.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 8

6
The next status conference was held on July 1, 2020.3 	At that time, the
Government noted that defendant’s appeal of his conviction was argued in early March
before the Second Circuit. 	Defense counsel then indicated that Eldridge is now
requesting an immediate trial as to the Unresolved Counts and the Severed Counts. The
Government objected. Counsel for the Government represented that should the Second
Circuit affirm Eldridge’s conviction, the Government would move to dismiss the remaining
counts of the Indictment, including both the Severed Counts and the Unresolved Counts.
If the conviction was not affirmed, the Government intended to rejoin the Severed Counts
and the Unresolved Counts and try them together.
DISCUSSION
Request for an Immediate Trial
The Court finds that setting an immediate trial date as to the remaining counts of
the Indictment is not in the interest of defendant, the Government, or the Court. All of the
reasons set forth in the Court’s October 4, 2016 decision to combine the Severed Counts
and Unresolved Counts and defer the trial of these counts until after resolution of
defendant’s appeal to the Second Circuit remain valid today. 	Defendant has been
convicted and sentenced to approximately 600 months of incarceration. 	This is not a
situation where defendant is detained only because the Severed Counts and Unresolved
Counts remain outstanding. 	At the most recent status conference, the Government
represented that should the Second Circuit affirm the conviction, they will move to dismiss
all remaining counts in the Indictment, to include both the Severed Counts and the
3 A number of status conferences were scheduled and adjourned prior to the July 1, 2020 conference as
a result of the National Emergency Declaration by the President of the United States in response to the
outbreak of the COVID-19 global pandemic, local conditions, and the severity of risks posed to
participants in Court proceedings and the public.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 6 of 8

7
Unresolved Counts. Thus, in the event that Eldridge’s appeal is denied, there will be no
further trial in this matter and the case will have concluded. Eldridge’s appeal has been
briefed and argued before the Second Circuit, and a decision is expected shortly. In the
event that the conviction is affirmed, defendant, the Government and the Court will be
saved the time, expense and energy of another long trial. 	Should Eldridge’s appeal be
granted and the Government decide to proceed to trial as to the Unresolved Counts and
the Severed Counts, a trial date will be set at that time.
Motion to Dismiss
The Court further finds that it is premature to render a decision on defendant’s
motion to dismiss Counts 16 and 17 of the Indictment. The Government has argued that
defendant raised violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial on appeal, and
thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over this claim at the present time. Defendant
was given an opportunity to brief this issue. Instead, defense counsel acknowledged that
the motion to dismiss may be premature and requested that the motion be held in
abeyance pending the outcome of the Second Circuit appeal. Thus, the motion has not
yet been fully briefed or argued. The Court also notes that should Eldridge’s conviction
be affirmed and the Government dismiss the Unresolved Counts and Severed Counts as
indicated, the motion to dismiss will be moot. For these reasons, the Court denies, without
prejudice, defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts 16 and 17 of the Indictment on speedy
trial grounds. 	Should the Government elect to proceed to trial on the Severed Counts,
defendant may renew his motion at that time.
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 7 of 8

8
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Thamud Eldridge’s request for an immediate
trial date as to the remaining counts of the Indictment is denied, and defendant’s motion
to dismiss Counts 16 and 17 of the Indictment is denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	August 3, 2020
Buffalo, New York
__s/Richard J. Arcara_______
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
United States District Judge
Case 1:09-cr-00329-RJA Document 878 Filed 08/04/20 Page 8 of 8