United States v. Babilonia
2017 WL 1371397, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6515, 854 F.3d 163 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement to provide something of pecuniary value for a murder-for-hire, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1958, can be established through circumstantial evidence, such as a general promise of financial support and a post-murder payment, even if no specific amount is agreed upon beforehand.
Facts:
- Roger Key was a high-level drug distributor in the Bronx and Manhattan who had an ongoing, violent dispute with a rival drug dealer, Terry Harrison.
- In the summer of 2010, Matthew Davis ('Matt'), an associate of Key, recruited Kevin Wilson to commit a murder, threatening to kill Wilson if he refused.
- Matt told Wilson that he and his associates would 'hold me down, that I was going to be good,' which Wilson understood to mean they would give him money and look out for him, though no specific dollar amount was discussed.
- After several days of planning, during which Key was present for some conversations, Matt provided Wilson with a gun and instructions to kill Harrison.
- Wilson located and shot Terry Harrison three times, causing his death.
- Shortly after the shooting, Matt picked Wilson up in a van, telling him it was 'pay day.'
- Matt then drove Wilson to meet Roger Key, who thanked Wilson for 'handling that situation for him' and handed him $1,000 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger Key was charged in a superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court with multiple offenses, including conspiracy to commit the murder-for-hire of Terry Harrison.
- Before trial, Key filed motions to suppress physical evidence recovered from a car stop and an apartment search.
- After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Key's suppression motions.
- Following a two-week trial, a jury found Key guilty on six counts, including the Harrison murder-for-hire conspiracy.
- The district court denied Key's motions for a directed verdict at the close of the government's case and at the end of the trial.
- The district court sentenced Key principally to life imprisonment plus 30 years.
- Key, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a general promise to 'hold someone down' financially, which the recipient understands to include payment, combined with a post-murder cash payment, constitute sufficient evidence to prove the 'pecuniary value' element of a conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes. A general promise of financial support combined with a post-murder payment is sufficient evidence for a jury to find the 'pecuniary value' element of a murder-for-hire conspiracy. Unlike cases where only a vague 'favor' is promised, here the record contained evidence that the parties understood the murder was being committed for financial compensation. Wilson testified that he understood the promise to 'hold him down' specifically included being given money. Furthermore, the post-agreement conduct of Key and his co-conspirators serves as powerful circumstantial evidence of their intent at the time the agreement was made. Matt’s statement that it was 'pay day' immediately after the murder, followed by Key's direct payment of $1,000 to Wilson, allowed a rational jury to conclude that the murder was solicited in exchange for financial compensation, satisfying the statute's requirement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'pecuniary value' element of the federal murder-for-hire statute does not require an explicit, pre-arranged contract with a specific price. It establishes that a jury can infer the existence of a quid-pro-quo agreement from the totality of the circumstances, placing significant weight on post-murder conduct like a cash payment. This lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors, allowing them to build a case on circumstantial evidence where direct evidence of a financial agreement is absent, thereby strengthening the government's ability to prosecute these complex conspiracies.
