This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, v. JASON TISDALE, a/k/a “Change,” Defendant. } } } } } } } } }
No. 07-10142-16- JTM
PLEA AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1)(C) The United States of America, by D. Blair Watson and David M. Lind, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Jason Tisdale, the defendant, personally and by and through his attorneys, John Val Wachtel and Charles M. Rogers, hereby enter into the following plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: 1. Defendant's Guilty Plea. If the Court permits, the defendant agrees
to plead guilty to: a. Count 1 of the Superseding Information, conspiracy to participate in a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d); and Counts 2 and 3 of the Superseding Information, violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1959(a)(5).
By entering into this plea agreement, the defendant admits to knowingly committing these offenses, and to being guilty of these offenses. The defendant understands that: Count 1 of the Superseding Information has a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life, a two hundred fifty thousand dollar ($250,000) fine, a period of supervised release of five (5) years, and a special assessment of one hundred dollars ($100); and Counts 2 and 3 of the Superseding Information each have a maximum sentence of not more than ten (10) years of imprisonment, a two hundred fifty thousand dollar ($250,000) fine, three (3) years of supervised release, and a special assessment of one hundred dollars ($100). 2. Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea. The parties agree the facts
constituting the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty are as follows: The Crips are a gang with members located throughout the United States, including the District of Kansas. The Crips have existed in the Wichita, Kansas, area since the early 1990s, and as such, are an enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affect, interstate commerce. In Wichita, the Crips are organized into subsets. One such subset is known as the Neighborhood Crips (“NHCs”). The Crips distinguish themselves from other gangs by wearing blue colored clothing, receiving specific types of tattoos, and using hand signs/signals. The Crips, including the NHCs, are a group of men who associate together for the common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct of racketeering activity, more specifically, drug trafficking. This conduct and activity included members and associates of the Crips conspiring to distribute illegal drugs.
The defendant admits that there was a connection between this conduct and the affairs of the NHCs. The defendant was an associate of the NHCs, and became a member. The defendant admits that from 1997 to at least 2007 he, and other gang members he conspired with, engaged in various activities in an effort to preserve, protect, and expand the power of the gang. This was accomplished through different means. As an associate, and then member, of the Crips, specifically the NHCs, and in connection with his participation in the Crips, the defendant agreed that he or another co-conspirator would commit at least two racketeering acts, and the defendant acknowledges that at least two racketeering acts were committed. This pattern of racketeering activity had an impact and affect on interstate commerce. In particular: On or about February 3, 1998, Tisha Jones and Keith James were murdered in Wichita, Kansas. The two were murdered because Tisha Jones was a witness in a state residential robbery case that was pending at the time against a person herein referred to as NHC 1, a member of the Crips, specifically the NHCs street gang in Wichita, Kansas. Keith James was the boyfriend of Tisha Jones and the father of her child. On the evening of November 16, 1997, officers were dispatched to a burglary in progress at 1202 N. Mathewson in Wichita, Kansas. Three black males entered the house and were demanding money. This was a house thought to be used by a cousin of Tisha Jones to store crack cocaine and/or the proceeds from crack sales. As the officers approached this house, they saw a car leave the driveway with its lights turned off. The officers stopped the car after a short chase. The only occupant of the car, NHC 1, was taken into custody. Inside the car was a 9mm handgun and the black leather coat NHC 1 had just taken from the house. It was later determined that this coat belonged to one of the robbery victims, Tisha Jones, who had been in the house with her aunt. After NHC 1 was arrested, he was taken back to the residence where Ms. Jones positively identified him as a participant in the robbery. NHC 1 was charged with aggravated robbery in state court and remained in custody, unable to post the bond. Ms. Jones testified against NHC 1 at his Parole Revocation hearing on November 26, 1997 and was scheduled to testify at the trial in state court. The trial was set for late February
1998. While in jail awaiting trial for the house robbery, NHC 1 contacted several people in an attempt to find someone who would keep Tisha Jones from testifying in his robbery case. During the period from November 1997 through February 1998, a residence located at 708 N. Madison, Wichita, Kansas, was used by the Crips, particularly the NHCs, as a location at which to spend time, hold meetings and to discuss the activities of the Neighborhood Crips. From November 1997 through early February 1998, members of the Neighborhood Crips spoke face to face and by telephone to discuss ways to stop Tisha Jones from testifying against NHC 1. A witness at 708 N. Madison accepted collect jail calls from NHC 1 and overheard him discuss with other NHCs members the need to keep the witness, Tisha Jones, from testifying. Various ways to get rid of the witness were discussed among the NHCs, including the defendant Jason Tisdale. Ultimately, a plan was developed in which Jason Tisdale stole a car to be used to transport a killing team of NHC members to and from the residence of Tisha Jones and Keith James. On the night of the murders a witness saw Jason Tisdale and two other members of NHCs, hereinafter referred to at NHC 2 and NHC 3. NHC 2 and NHC 3 left 708 N. Madison with Tisdale and then returned after the murders of Tisha Jones and Keith James. When they left the house, Tisdale carried a pistol and NHC 2 and NHC 3 were armed with revolvers. NHC 2 and NHC 3 had gloves and ski masks. Jason Tisdale possessed gloves but had no ski mask. The exact time the killing team left the N. Madison residence is unknown. However, a surveillance tape from a local convenience store located a little less than a mile from the murder scene, shows Mr. Tisdale entered the store at approximately 11:42 p.m. on February 2, 1998. Tisdale, wearing gloves, remained in the store for approximately 24 seconds. Tisdale asked the clerk for a ski mask. The store did not have ski masks and the clerk told Tisdale that he only had stocking masks and to try Wal Mart. Tisdale left the store without making a purchase. Tisdale drove the stolen car to the residence of Tisha Jones and Keith
James. Once there, Tisdale remained in the car while NHC 2 and NHC 3 made entry into the house and murdered Tisha Jones and Keith James. After the killings, Tisdale drove the car away from the murder scene. As he drove, NHC 2 and NHC 3 threw the revolvers used in the murders out the windows of the car. At approximately 0015 hours on February 3, 1998, Wichita Police Department officers were dispatched to the Jones-James residence based upon neighbors reporting that they heard gunshots. When officers arrived, they found Tisha Jones and Keith James lying in the corner of their bedroom, shot to death. A later autopsy showed that Ms. Jones had been shot once in the head and suffered a through and through wound to the stomach and a wound in her arm. Keith James had been shot one time in the head. Ms. Jones’ and Mr. James’ infant child was asleep in a crib in the same room. Physical evidence collected at the scene revealed that two revolvers were used during the shootings. One of the firearms used, a .357 Magnum, S & W Model 66 Revolver, was found by a city employee three days later in a sewer pipe a few miles away. The second firearm, which was used for both head shots, has never been recovered. After returning to the N. Madison house, NHC 2 took a shower and changed his clothes. Tisdale and NHC 3 did not. At least one witness in the N. Madison house was instructed by NHC 2 to, if questioned by police, say that NHC 2 had been there all night. The witness later heard a discussion about the unanticipated presence of the boyfriend and the child and stating while the child was unharmed the boyfriend was also killed. Milton Colbert was in Sedgwick County Jail with NHC 1 while NHC 1 was awaiting trial for the crack house robbery. After the murders of Jones and James, Colbert contacted Wichita police detectives and told them about NHC 1’s conversations with him about the murders. Mr. Colbert told the detectives he believed that NHC 1 talked to him because Colbert knew Tisha Jones. NHC 1 told Colbert that NHCs had devised a plan to bribe Tisha Jones to not testify against NHC 1. Colbert stated that he later overheard a telephone conversation between NHC 1 and another NHC member. In that conversation NHC 1 was told to not take
any deals because Ms. Jones would not testify against him. Later, after the murders, Colbert overheard NHC 1 take a call from a NHC member, who informed NHC 1 that the killings had been done. On August 4, 2004, the rap group “Family Tyze” was scheduled to perform at the Jungle Club, a club in Wichita, Kansas. Umanah Smith, a member of “Family Tyze,” arrived at the club at approximately 11:00 p.m.. Some members of the group were Lincoln Park Bloods, a rival gang to the Crips, or associates of the Bloods. The performance never occurred because a fight broke out between some Bloods and Crips. The police were called at 12:57 a.m. and the club was locked down. “Family Tyze” members were ushered out of the club. Many of the Bloods who left the Jungle Club ended up at Umanah Smith’s house at 2531 N. Minnesota, a residence in north Wichita, where an estimated twenty to thirty people partied both inside and outside. They smoked marijuana, drank, and played music. The party eventually died down leaving only Umanah Smith and fellow “Family Tyze” member Kasseem Griegler sitting at the kitchen table listening to music and a female friend of Smith’s, Destiny Livingstone, lying on a sofa in the front room. Among the many Crips present at the Jungle Club was the defendant, Jason Tisdale. Tisdale was driven to the club by a fellow NHC member, hereinafter referred to as “NHC 4”. At the Jungle Club they met up with other NHC members. Following the fight, Tisdale was driven from the club by NHC 4. They drove to a female’s residence, where they obtained firearms. They then met with other NHCs to discuss retaliation measures to be taken against the Bloods for the disrespect shown to the Crips and the fight at the Jungle Club. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 5, 2004, an unknown number of Crips, including NHCs members, armed with handguns, went to Umanah Smith’s house at 2531 N. Minnesota. While outside on Smith’s front porch, one of the NHCs, accidentally discharged his firearm striking Jason Tisdale in his right foot. Others in the group quickly opened the unlocked front door, entered the residence, and opened fire as they moved through the front room into the kitchen where
Umanah Smith was shot and killed. Smith had been sitting at the kitchen table facing the intruders as they entered the kitchen. A .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun, identified as his gun, was found near Smith’s body. It was unholstered, but had no round in the chamber. Destiny Livingstone saw the first intruder who came through the door. That person, wearing a mask, shot at her and hit her in the finger. She then laid down and played dead. Kasseem Griegler was seated at the kitchen table with his back to the door and saw no one. He sustained a grazing scratch/wound to the shoulder and serious wounds to his upper legs. He left a blood trail from the kitchen, through the utility room, and into the garage as he managed to drag himself from the kitchen into the garage after the shooting ended and the shooters left. As the Crips left, Tisdale was placed in one of the cars and taken to his sister’s residence by NHC 4. On the way to her house, Tisdale’s firearm was thrown from the vehicle. While no firearms were recovered, ballistic testing shows that at least three different guns were used. Thirteen shell casings, from 2 separate firearms (three 9mm Luger R-P brand and ten Winchester 40 S&W) were recovered. Twenty-one bullets/fragments from at lest 3 separate firearms were recovered. [The other firearm(s) used were most likely a .38 or 357.] DNA testing was done by the police. The profile from a swab of a blood spot found on the front porch of Smith’s house was compared to that of Jason Tisdale and found to be consistent with the profile of Jason Tisdale, therefore, he cannot be excluded as the source of this profile.1 Following the Smith murder, Jason Tisdale had a bullet in his right foot. In November 2005, Tisdale sought a Social Security Disability determination through the Kansas Department of Social and
Statistical Evaluation: The probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random for the following population groups who exhibits a matching DNA profile is approximately: Caucasian 1 in 1.13 septillion [#followed by 24 zeros] Black 1 in 657 sextillion [# followed by 21 zeros] Hispanic 1 in 4.37 septillion [#followed by 24 zeros] 7
Rehabilitative Services. He was sent to the Hunter Health Clinic, Brookside for a physical. The notes from the visit reflect “right foot had gunshot wound in August 2004 ... Didn’t go to ER for fear of getting arrested.” From there, Tisdale was referred to the Wichita Clinic, where the bullet was removed on January 24, 2006. Tisdale told the clinic he sustained the gunshot wound in July 2004. The bullet was destroyed soon after its removal. At no time was a report of the gunshot wound made to Law Enforcement despite Kansas law requiring such a report. 3. Proposed (c)(1)(C) Sentence. The parties propose, as an appropriate
disposition of the case, a sentence of one hundred twenty (120) months in prison on each of Counts 1, 2, and 3, to run consecutively to each other, for a total sentence of three hundred sixty (360) months imprisonment; a period of supervised release of five (5) years on Count 1 and three (3) years on Counts 2 and 3, to run concurrently with each other; no fine; and the mandatory special assessment of $300 to be paid during the defendant’s incarceration. The parties seek this binding plea agreement as an appropriate disposition of the case because it brings certainty to the sentencing process and assures that the defendant and the government will benefit from the bargain they have struck if the Court permits itself to be bound by the proposed sentence; the interests of justice are served by the sentence, thereby assuring that the sentence is consistent with the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and if the Court does not agree with the sentence, the parties may be restored to the positions they maintained prior to reaching this plea agreement. This agreement centers on the defendant’s agreement to enter his guilty plea as soon as the Court’s schedule permits,
thereby preserving valuable Court, prosecution, public defender, probation office, U.S. Marshals Service and other law enforcement resources. 4. Application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The parties are of the
belief that the proposed sentence does not offend the now advisory sentencing guidelines, but because this proposed sentence is sought pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties are not requesting imposition of an advisory guideline sentence. 5. Government's Additional Agreement . In return for the defendant’s
plea of guilty as set forth herein, the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas also agrees to not file any additional charges against the defendant arising out of the facts forming the basis for the Indictments, and to dismiss the Fifth Superseding Indictment as to the defendant. 6. Whether to Accept the Proposed Plea Agreement and Sentence is Up The Court has no obligation to accept the proposed plea agreement
to the Court.
and sentence. It is solely within the Court’s discretion whether to accept the proposed binding plea agreement as an appropriate disposition of the case. 7. Withdrawal of Plea Permitted Only if the Court Does Not Accept the On the other hand, if the Court agrees
Plea Agreement and Proposed Sentence.
to be bound by proposed plea agreement and accepts the defendant’s plea of guilty,
the defendant will not be permitted to withdraw it. Only if the Court rejects the proposed plea agreement will the defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. 8. Payment of Special Assessment. The defendant understands that a
mandatory special assessment of $100 per count will be entered against the defendant at the time of sentencing. The parties acknowledge the defendant is without adequate resources to pay the special assessment at the time of sentencing and agree to recommend that the Court order payment to occur during the defendant’s period of incarceration. 9. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The defendant knowingly
and voluntarily waives any right to appeal or collaterally attack any matter in connection with this prosecution, the defendant's conviction, or the components of the sentence to be imposed herein including the length and conditions of supervised release. The defendant is aware that Title 18, U.S.C. § 3742 affords a defendant the right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed. By entering into this agreement, the defendant knowingly waives any right to file and prosecute an appeal of the sentence imposed. The defendant also waives any right to challenge a sentence or otherwise attempt to modify or change his sentence or manner in which it was determined in any collateral attack, including, but not limited to, a motion brought under Title 28, U.S.C. § 2255 [except as limited by United States v. Cockerham, 237
F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001)], a motion brought under Title 18, U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and a motion brought under Fed. Rule of Civ. Pro 60(b). 10. Waiver of FOIA Request. The defendant waives all rights, whether
asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case including, without limitation, any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5, U.S.C. § 552, or the Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5, U.S.C. § 552a. 11. Full Disclosure by United States. The defendant understands the
United States will provide to the Court and the United States Probation Office all information it deems relevant to determining the appropriate sentence in this case. This may include information concerning the background, character, and conduct of the defendant including the entirety of the defendant’s criminal activities. The defendant understands these disclosures are not limited to the count to which the defendant has pled guilty. The United States may respond to comments made or positions taken by the defendant or defendant’s counsel and to correct any misstatements or inaccuracies. The United States further reserves its right to make any recommendations it deems appropriate regarding the disposition of this case, subject only to any limitations set forth in this plea agreement. The defendant also has
the right to provide information concerning the offense and to make recommendations to the Court and the United States Probation Office. 12. Parties to the Agreement. The defendant understands this plea
agreement binds only the defendant and the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, and that it does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecution authority. 13. No Other Agreements. The defendant has had sufficient time to
discuss this case, the evidence, and this agreement with the defendant’s attorneys and defendant is fully satisfied with the advice and representation provided by defendant’s counsel. Further, the defendant acknowledges that he has had the plea agreement read to him, understands it and agrees it is true and accurate and not the result of any threats, duress or coercion. The defendant further understands that this plea
agreement supersedes any and all other agreements or negotiations between the parties, and that this agreement embodies each and every term of the agreement between the parties. The defendant acknowledges that the defendant is entering into this agreement and is pleading guilty because the defendant is guilty and is doing so freely and voluntarily.
Date: D. BLAIR WATSON Assistant U.S. Attorney
301 N. Main, Suite 1200 Wichita, Kansas 67202 (316) 269-6481 Kan. Sup. Ct. No. 09028
Date: DAVID M. LIND Criminal Supervisor
_______________________ BARRY R. GRISSOM United States Attorney
Date:_____________________ JASON TISDALE Defendant
Date:_____________________ JOHN VAL WACHTEL Attorney for Defendant Klenda, Mitchell, Austerman & Zuercher, L.L.C. 301 N. Main, Suite 1600 Wichita, Kansas 67202-4888 (316) 267-0331 firstname.lastname@example.org
Date:_____________________ CHARLES M. ROGERS Attorney for Defendant Wyrsch, Hobbs & Mirakian, P.C. 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2140 (816) 221-0080 email@example.com
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.