Criminal – Man convicted for role in attempted murder of witness

Where a man convicted of witness-murder and marijuana trafficking charges challenged his convictions on multiple grounds, but each of his challenges was rejected, his convictions were affirmed.

Background

Clifton Mosley appeals his conviction by a jury of witness-murder and marijuana trafficking. During trial, the government presented evidence that Mosley was friends and drug-trafficking partners with Davon Carter and Matthew Hightower. Hightower
had been indicted for healthcare fraud and extortion, due to information provided to the authorities by his co-worker Lisa
Edmonds, who was to be a witness at his trial.

The government alleges that while
Hightower was detained pretrial, Mosley and Carter conspired with Hightower to murder Lisa Edmonds. On May 27, 2016, two hours before Edmonds was due to attend a court hearing, a man chased, shot and killed her next-door neighbor, Latrina Ashburne. The government alleges that the shooter, Carter, had mistaken Ashburne for Edmonds.

Police found surveillance footage of two cars circling the neighborhood in the hour before the shooting, and eventually traced the cars as being associated with Carter and Mosley. Carter and Mosley were convicted after a 13-day trial of witness-murder and marijuana trafficking.

Severance

Mosley appeals the district court‘s denial of the motions to sever the defendants and to sever the witness-murder charges from the marijuana distribution charges. Two or more offenses can be joined if they “are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Two or more defendants can be joined if those defendants “are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.”

Here, it is evident that the allegations connect Carter and Mosley to the same conspiracy to murder Edmonds. Moreover, the underlying marijuana offenses are essential to establishing the connection between Carter, Mosley and Hightower, giving not only background information about their relationship but also providing a motive—because of the trafficking activity, Carter and Mosley were not just connected to Hightower through friendship but through financial benefits.

Although Mosley attempts to argue that the marijuana offenses and the murder offenses ought to be severed because they are “not of the same or similar character,” Rule 8 clearly permits joinder when acts “are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Because initial joinder comported with Rule 8, it was proper. For the same reasons, the court discerns no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Mosley’s motions to sever.

Even if the charges were improperly joined, that error was harmless. The district court instructed the jury to separately evaluate each defendant’s guilt. Further, the evidence of the marijuana trafficking would have been admissible to provide critical context for the conspiracy. The court therefore affirms the district court’s decision.

Suppress

Mosley contends that the district court wrongfully denied Carter’s motion to suppress marijuana and phone evidence for two reasons: (1) The Terry stop-search on his BMW lacked reasonable suspicion and (2) the Baltimore City Police did not have jurisdiction to detain Carter in Baltimore County.

Mosley lacks standing to raise either argument. He cannot claim Fourth Amendment rights in the evidence collected from Carter. The Supreme Court has held that Fourth Amendment rights “are personal” and cannot be asserted vicariously. It is not enough that Mosley was “‘aggrieved . . . by the introduction of damaging evidence.’”

Instead, Mosley must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place the officer searched—but the Supreme Court has held that in general, one cannot have such an expectation in the belongings of another person. Mosley fails to show that he is an exception to this principle. For this reason, the court cannot consider the district court’s denial of the suppression motion.

Sufficiency

The facts obtained from witness testimony and physical evidence overwhelmingly connect Hightower, Carter and Mosley—and specifically tie Carter and Mosley to the scene of the shooting at the time of the shooting. The government has presented a complete and cohesive story for why and how the murder was committed, explaining each piece from motive to the interplay of the three cars. The jury verdict was no doubt supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

United States v. Mosley, Case No. 21-4541, Feb. 24, 2026. 4th Cir. (Gregory), from DMD at Baltimore (Hazel). Richard S. Stolker for appellant. Jason Daniel Medinger for appellee. VLW 026-2-059. 14 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-059
Virginia Lawyers Weekly