UNITED STATES v. MULLINS (2025)

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants Raven Mullins, Henry Burchett, and James Clemons, three of the eighteen defendants in this case, currently face a host of criminal charges. Of relevance here, these three Defendants are accused of murder in aid of racketeering. Previously, the United States Department of Justice signaled its intent not to seek the death penalty in connection with this charge. Based on the change in administration, and an Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025, the Court inquires whether the United States intends to stand on that decision or to revisit it.

BACKGROUND

A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment on November 14, 2024, charging the 18 Defendants in this case with various offenses. It alleges that Defendants were leaders, members, and associates of a criminal enterprise called the “Fully Blooded Felons.” (ECF No. 189, ¶ 1, PageID # 815.) This enterprise was allegedly engaged in, among other things, acts of violence, including murder, kidnapping, assault, robbery, drug distribution, and firearms trafficking. (Id.) The Fully Blooded Felons gang purportedly operated on the east side of Cleveland, mainly using two apartments to conduct their operations. (Id., ¶ 18, PageID #819.)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and (2), Defendants Raven Mullins, Henry Burchett, and James Clemmons face a charge of murder in aid of racketeering. (ECF No. 189.) On December 4, 2024, the United States provided notice of its intent not to seek the death penalty as to Raven Mullins, Henry Burchett, and James Clemons. (ECF No. 207.)

DISCUSSION

In 1994, Congress enacted the Federal Death Penalty Act. See Pub. L. 103-322, §§ 60001-26, 108 Stat. 1959, 1959–82 (1994) (codified at 18 U.S.C. 3591 et seq.). The Act expanded the reach of the federal death penalty, making sixty crimes capital offenses and setting forth various procedures for its potential application. Id. § 60002. In this case, Count 6 charges murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2), which qualifies as a capital offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2).

Under the statute and Department of Justice policy, certain procedures attend any case in which the prosecution seeks the death penalty. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a)(1), the prosecutor shall provide notice stating his belief that a sentence of death is justified and will be sought “a reasonable time before the trial or before acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty.” Following enactment of the Federal Death Penalty Act, the Department of Justice promulgated polices for all cases in which a defendant is charged with a capital crime. See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-10.000 et seq. To allow the United States to discharge its obligations under Section 3593, cases that qualify for the death penalty undergo an extensive internal review process, with the Attorney General making the final decision. Id. § 9-10.050; United States v. Lee, 274 F.3d 485, 489 (8th Cir. 2001). When the Attorney General makes the final decision, the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General should promptly inform the district court and counsel for the defendant and file a notice as soon as possible. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-10.150.

The Department of Justice Manual creates a process for withdrawal of a previously filed notice of the intention to seek the death penalty. Id. § 9-10.160. However, nothing in this section or any other section of the Justice Manual outlines the process for authorizing a notice of intention to seek the death penalty after a notice of intention not to seek the death penalty was previously filed. Contrary to what some might think, the Court doubts that the discretionary decision of one Executive can bind the next. Because the Attorney General bears responsibility for making that final determination, the Court assumes that one Attorney General has the discretion to make a different decision than her predecessor. Further, on January 20, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order directing, among other things, that “the Attorney General shall pursue the death penalty for all crimes of a severity demanding its use.”

Against this background, the Court requests that the United States either confirm its intention to stand on the decision it previously made not to seek the death penalty or to provide the notice required under Section 3593 of a contrary determination. In the interest of providing appropriate and timely notice to allow this case to move forward as efficiently and speedily as practicable, the Court requests the filing of this notice no later than May 15, 2025.

The Court requests this notice not to second guess or challenge the decision made on December 4, 2024 not to seek the death penalty. Such a decision rests within the discretion of the prosecutor. United States v. McVeigh, 944 F. Supp. 1478, 1483 (D. Colo. 1996). That discretion “has repeatedly and consistently been held to be presumptively unreviewable by the courts.” United States v. Shakir, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1187 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) (citation and quotation omitted). With the leadership transition in the Department of Justice, resulting in potentially new personnel performing the internal review on when to seek the death penalty, see U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual §§ 9-10.050 & 9-10.130, and the filing of the second superseding indictment just over two months ago, the Court finds it appropriate to inquire at this juncture while this case remains in its relatively early stages.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court requests that, by May 15, 2025, the United States confirm its decision not to seek the death penalty as to Defendants Raven Mullins, Henry Burchett, and James Clemons or to file the required statutory notice if it makes a contrary decision.

SO ORDERED.

J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge