govinfo:USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cr-00328-6

1 
 
United States District Court 
Eastern District of New York 
 
---------------------------X 
 
United States of America, 
 
 
- against - 
 
Tony Clanton, 
also known as “Tone,” 
 
Defendant. 
 
---------------------------X 
 
 
 
 
 
Memorandum & Order 
 
No. 23-cr-328 (KAM)  
 
Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Judge: 
 
Presently before the Court is the government’s motion in 
limine seeking admission of evidence obtained from Defendant 
Lawrence Dotson’s (“Dotson”) Cell Phone (the “Dotson Phone”).  (ECF 
Nos. 55, “Govt. Mot. in Lim.”; 63, “Govt. Reply”.)  Defendant Tony 
Clanton (“Clanton,” and together with Dotson, “Defendants”) 
opposes the government’s motion.  (ECF No. 58, “Def. Opp.”; ECF 
No. 308, “Def. Letter.”)  The Court previously reserved ruling on 
this motion in an order dated March 12, 2024 (the “March 12 Order”) 
pending additional information.  (ECF No. 88, “March 12 Order” at 
68.) 
For the reasons set forth below, having reviewed the Parties’ 
submissions, the case record, the disputed evidence, and the 
relevant law, the government’s motion to admit evidence obtained 
from the Dotson Phone is GRANTED. 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
BACKGROUND 
The government “seeks to admit evidence obtained from the 
Dotson Phone, which was seized pursuant to Dotson’s arrest, and 
which was searched pursuant to the July 12, 2023 Search Warrant.”  
(ECF No. 88 at 65 (citing Govt. Mot. in Lim. at 24-27).)  The 
evidence includes messages between Mr. Dotson and contacts called 
“Tone” and “Tone 2,” who the government expects to prove is Mr. 
Clanton, as well as a victim of the uncharged June 24, 2023 
attempted robbery and home invasion, referred to as “Victim-3.”
1  
(See ECF No. 88 at 65-66; ECF No. 55 at 6; ECF No. 63 at 10.) 
I. Messages between Mr. Dotson and Mr. Clanton 
First, the government moves to admit messages between Dotson 
and Clanton from January 2022 in which Clanton proposes a potential 
robbery in the Bronx that would include “400,000 cash[,] Rolex’s[,] 
[sic] and bricks,” to which Mr. Dotson responds in part, “U know 
u can count on me!” and “u the master mind, just let me know what 
I got to do.”  (ECF No. 104, Ex. 4, CLANTONETAL002182.)  
Immediately after, Clanton texts Dotson, “We talk tomorrow be ready 
around 10 am,” and Dotson replies, “I need to do something now, 
I’m on E and insurance is due in a few days! [emojis].”  (ECF No. 
104, Ex. 4, CLANTONETAL0020182.)   
 
1 In the March 12 Order, the Court held that evidence of the uncharged June 24, 
2023 attempted robbery and home invasion is admissible as “direct evidence of 
the charged conspiracy and as other acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).”  
(ECF No. 88 at 63.)   
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
Second, the government moves to admit messages between Dotson 
and Clanton from June to July 2023, which were exchanged during 
the timeline of the Hobbs Act Robbery Conspiracy charged in Count 
One of the Superseding Indictment.  (ECF No. 104, Ex. 4, 
CLANTONETAL002184.)   In an exchange on July 12, 2023, Clanton and 
Dotson discuss their credit scores and Clanton writes, “My score 
is at 760 after the bankruptcy [emoji]”
2 and the “only thing on my 
credit is one Mercedes 580.”  (ECF No. 104, Ex. 4, 
CLANTONETAL002184.)  According to the government, the Mercedes 
Clanton references in this message is the same make and model of 
the white Mercedes-Benz registered to Clanton that the government 
alleges was used during the July 12, 2023 Robbery charged in Count 
Five of the Superseding Indictment (the “Clanton Mercedes”).  (See 
ECF No. 55 at 9-10; ECF No. 63 at 10.)   
In another exchange on July 15, 2023, Clanton texts Dotson “a 
video showing a theft from a Brinks truck and [writes], ‘3days 
[sic] ago 6.8 million cash brinks truck [emoji]’ [and] Dotson 
respond[s], ‘That’s an inside job’ ‘For sure’, ‘With those jump 
offfs [sic], we can do it.’”  (ECF No. 55 at 11.)  From July 15 to 
July 22, 2023 Clanton also texts Dotson several times to check in 
on him.  For example, on July 22, 2023, Clanton texts Dotson, 
 
2 In an Order dated November 21, 2024 the Court held that Clanton’s bankruptcy 
petition before the Eastern District of New York is relevant and admissible as 
direct evidence of the charged crimes.  (ECF No. 205, “Nov. 21 Order” at 25-
31.)  
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
“Checking on you bro you good?”, Dotson responds, “Yeah, I’m 
hanging in there. U?”, and Clanton responds, “I’m good bro under 
the circumstances.”  (ECF No. 104, Ex. 4, CLANTONETAL002184.) 
II. Messages between Mr. Dotson and Victim-3 
The government also moves to admit messages obtained from the 
Dotson Phone between Dotson and Victim-3.  For example, on June 
21, 2023, Dotson texts Victim-3, “A guy I know is going to jail so 
he’s selling a white 2021 S580 for $60000!”, a car of the same 
make and model as the Clanton Mercedes.  (ECF No. 104, Ex. 4, 
CLANTONETAL002181; ECF No. 63 at 10.)  Victim-3 responds, asking 
for information about the car, and ultimately asks to be put in 
touch with the seller, who the government alleges is Clanton.  (ECF 
No. 104, Ex. 4, CLANTONETAL002181.)  According to the government, 
“[p]hone company records show that [a number associated with 
Clanton ending in 8087 (the “Clanton 8087 Number”) then] 
communicated with Victim-3’s phone number eight times between June 
21, 2023 and June 22, 2023.”  (ECF No. 55 at 6.)   
On June 24, 2023, video footage shows a white Mercedes-Benz 
registered to Dotson (the “Dotson-Mercedes”) parked in front of 
Victim-3’s residence.  (ECF No. 55 at 6.)  The government alleges 
that Victim-3 came out of his residence and got into the front 
passenger seat of the Dotson Mercedes.  (ECF No. 55 at 6-7.)  
Thereafter, a “man entered the rear passenger door of the Dotson 
Mercedes, took out a gun, and told Victim-3 not to move,” after 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
which Victim-3 ran back into his residence, followed by the gunman, 
who attempted to force his way inside.  (ECF No. 55 at 7.)   
DISCUSSION 
I. Statements of an Opposing Party 
The government argues that the proffered messages between 
Clanton and Dotson are admissible against Clanton pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 801(d)(2)(A) because as 
Clanton’s “own statements” they are “simply [ ] statement[s] of 
the opposing party” that are probative of Clanton’s use of the 
Clanton 8087 Number, his relationship with his co-conspirator, 
Dotson, and his use of vehicles the government alleges were used 
in the charged robberies.  (ECF No. 63 at 8-10 (citing United 
States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1982)).)  The government 
further argues that the messages Clanton sent during the charged 
conspiracy to check in with Dotson are also “admissible as 
providing reassurance and fostering trust and cohesiveness between 
[co-conspirators].”  (ECF No. 55 at 27 (citing United States v. 
Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. 
Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 959 (2d Cir. 1990)).)  In response, 
Clanton argues that the cited text exchanges are inadmissible 
hearsay that are nothing more than “idle chatter” and “casual 
conversation” that do not rise to the level of furthering a 
conspiracy.  (ECF No. 58 at 8 (citing United States v. Lieberman, 
637 F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1980)).) 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
 
As an initial matter this Court has already determined that 
the text messages from the Dotson Phone that “involve statements 
made by Clanton . . . are not hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 
801(d)(2).”  (ECF No. 88 at 68.)  Having made this determination, 
the Court must now balance the relevance and probative value of 
the messages as compared to their prejudicial effect.  See Fed. R. 
Evid. 401, 403.  Rule
 403 permits the exclusion of evidence, even 
if relevant, “if its probative value is substantially outweighed 
by a danger of . . . unfair  prejudice, confusing the issues, 
misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly 
presenting cumulative evidence.”  Fed. R. Evid. 403.   
Here, the proffered messages are plainly relevant and 
admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and their 
probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of 
unfair prejudice.  United States v. Kahale, 789 F. Supp. 2d 359, 
381 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Graham, 477 
F. App’x 818 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (“To be relevant, 
evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and 
evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof 
of the charges can have that tendency.”).  They are not, as Clanton 
argues, mere “idle chatter.”  (ECF No. 58 at 8); see United States 
v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding the “District 
Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prior bad acts 
evidence” in part because it showed “‘the basis for trust’ between 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
7 
 
the co-conspirators” even though the “Defendant strenuously 
argue[d], some of the observed conduct might be nothing more than 
innocent acts of a friend, and not a knowing participation in a 
conspiracy”) (internal citation omitted).   
The 2022 messages between Clanton and Dotson include 
discussions of potential robberies and “help explain how the 
illegal relationship between [Clanton and Dotson] developed,” as 
well as “the mutual trust that existed between [the] 
coconspirators.”  United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 72–73 
(2d Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Smothers, 652 F. Supp. 
3d 271, 284 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that in a charged conspiracy, 
“‘[a]n act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the 
alleged conspiracy’ is considered ‘part of the very act charged’”) 
(quoting United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d Cir. 1999)).  
Moreover, the 2023 messages described above were sent during the 
charged Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and provide “crucial 
background evidence that [gives] coherence to the basic sequence 
of events that occurred” in connection with the incidents 
underlying the instant charges.  United States v. Gonzalez , 110 
F.3d 936, 942 (2d Cir. 1997).  These factors, taken together, weigh 
in favor of admission. 
Turning to the question of unfair prejudice under Rule 403, 
it is well settled in the Second Circuit that relevant evidence 
will not be precluded by Rule 403 where “the conduct is not ‘any 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
8 
 
more sensational or disturbing’ than the charged crime.”  United 
States v. Rosemond , 958 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting 
United States v. Lyle, 919 F.3d 716, 737 (2d Cir. 2019)).  Here, 
there is no doubt that the subject matter of the messages is not 
“any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which 
[Clanton is] charged,” which include two counts of Hobbs Act 
Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of use 
of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii).  United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 
1120 (2d Cir. 1992).  Accordingly, the Court finds that the 
messages between Clanton and Dotson are both relevant and 
admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged.  Kahale, 789 
F. Supp. 2d at 381 (finding “evidence is often admissible to 
provide background for the events alleged in the indictment or to 
enable the jury to understand the complete story of the crimes 
charged”). 
II. Statements of a Co-conspirator 
The government argues that “Dotson’s messages to Victim-3 are 
[also] admissible against Clanton pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as 
statements ‘made by [a] party’s coconspirator during and in 
furtherance of the conspiracy.”  (ECF No. 63 at 10 (citing Fed. R. 
Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)).)  Clanton responds that the messages are 
inadmissible hearsay because “on their face [they] appear to be no 
different than any other ‘casual conversation about past events’” 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
9 
 
and “the government has failed to establish that the purported 
messages were in furtherance of the conspiracy.”  (ECF No. 58 at 
8-9 (citing Lieberman, 637 F.2d at 103).) 
Rule 801(d)(2)(E) does not instruct that co-conspirator 
statements are only admissible against those who either made or 
heard the statements.  “Co-conspirator statements are admissible 
against all members of a conspiracy” so long as they are in fact 
made “in furtherance” of that conspiracy.  United States v. 
Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir. 1991).  “To admit a statement 
under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay definition, a 
district court must find two factors by a preponderance of the 
evidence: first, that a conspiracy existed that included the 
defendant and the declarant; and second, that the statement was 
made during the course of and in furtherance of that conspiracy.”  
Gigante, 166 F.3d at 82. 
Assuming the government can prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that a conspiracy existed between Messrs. Dotson and 
Clanton, Dotson was a member of the conspiracy, the statements 
were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, and provide independent 
corroborating evidence of Clanton’s participation in the 
conspiracy, the messages between Dotson and Victim-3 discussing 
the sale of the white Mercedes are admissible pursuant to Rule 
801(d)(2)(E) as statements that “prompt[ed] [Victim-3] to respond 
in a way that facilitate[d] the carrying out of criminal activity,” 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>
10 
namely the conspiracy charged in Count One.  United States v. 
Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1987). 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, the government’s motion to 
admit evidence obtained from the Dotson phone is GRANTED.  
So ordered. 
Dated: April 12, 2025 
Brooklyn, New York  _______________________________  
Kiyo A. Matsumoto 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
Case 1:23-cr-00328-KAM     Document 309     Filed 04/12/25     Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight