United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
February 14, 2017, Defendant Kelvin Crumpton, through
counsel, filed a Motion for New Trial on Count 1 Based on
Newly Discovered Evidence of Government's Due Process
Violation Under Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v.
Whitley . On March 30, 2017, the Government filed
its Response . Defendant filed a Reply  on April 14,
2017. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on October 18,
reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion for New Trial
 is DENIED.
and Procedural Background
September 5, 2014, a jury convicted Mr. Crumpton of Felon in
Possession of Ammunition (Count 1) and Possession with Intent
to Distribute Heroin and Other Controlled Substances (Count
2). [Dkt. #43]. The case arose following the execution of a
search warrant by the Wayne County Sheriff's Department
on October 18, 2013 at 745 Sloan. Upon execution of the
warrant, the police recovered, among other things, rounds of
ammunition, controlled substances, and digital scales.
trial, the Government called witnesses Sgt. Donald Farris and
Agent Gregory Lotoczky who testified that the controlled
substances were found in the rear area of the premises, where
Mr. Crumpton lived. Sgt. Farris further testified that the
ammunition (the subject of Count 1), a blue digital scale
containing heroin residue (GX 21), and a black digital scale
(GX 26) were found in the front of the premises, near the
fish tank. T. Tr. at 13:3-6; 25:18-24; 32:1-2 (Sep. 4, 2014).
his conviction, Mr. Crumpton filed a Motion for Judgment of
an Acquittal, or in the Alternative, Conditional Motion for
New Trial on September 14, 2014. [Dkt. #44]. On February 12,
2015, the Court granted his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
[Dkt. #51]. The Court further held that Mr. Crumpton was
entitled to a new trial should the bases of acquittal be
reversed. Id. at 27. On March 11, 2015, the
Government filed a Notice of Appeal .
2, 2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court's decision
granting the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and New Trial.
United States v. Crumpton, 824 F.3d 593, 600 (6th
Cir. 2016). The Sixth Circuit reinstated the jury's
verdict and remanded for resentencing. Id.
December 2016, Mr. Crumpton's counsel submitted a FOIA
request to the Wayne County Sheriff's Department. [Dkt.
#83 at 8]. In response to the request, counsel received a
Wayne County Sherriff's Office Evidence Log (Exhibit E)
documenting the October 18, 2013 search of 745 Sloan.
Id. The Evidence Log stated that the blue scale with
heroin residue (hereinafter “GX 21”) was
recovered from the dining table in the rear of the premises.
newly discovered Evidence Log's documentation that GX 21
was seized from the rear of the premises plainly
contradicts Sgt. Farris' testimony that it was seized
from the front of the premises near the fish tank.
Motion , Mr. Crumpton argues that the Court should grant
a new trial on Count 1 because the Evidence Log contradicts
the ATF records and Government testimony as to the location
of GX 21. Mr. Crumpton further submits that “the
Evidence Log is material as to where GX 21 was found,
material impeachment as to the veracity of Sgt. Ferris'
testimony, and exculpatory as to whether Defendant in fact
‘possessed' the ammunition, or merely knew it was
there.” [Dkt. #87 at 2].
support of his argument, Mr. Crumpton maintains that GX 21,
as the only scale recovered containing drug residue, was
circumstantially linked to the drugs found in the rear of the
house. Mr. Crumpton further maintains that Sgt. Ferris'
testimony on GX 21's close proximity to the bullets was
critical to his conviction on Count 1. [Dkt. #87 at 3]. In
sum, Mr. Crumpton argues that there is a reasonable
probability that he would not have been convicted of Count 1
had this evidence been presented to the jury. [Dkt. #83 at
Government concedes that it should have turned over the
Evidence Log to the defense under Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1983). Nevertheless, the Government submits that
given the “overwhelming” evidence against Mr.
Crumpton at trial, including Mr. Crumpton's incriminating
statements to law enforcement as to the location of the
ammunition, [Dkt. #86 at 11], and Mr. Crumpton's
possession at the time of trial of a handwritten evidence log
(Exhibit A) that ...