FOR PUBLICATION 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
Plaintiff. 
v. 
EUGENE ROBERTS and LARRY 
WILLIAMS, JR., 
Defendants. 
) 
CASE NO. SX-I4-CR-136 
) 
CASE NO. SX-14-CR-144 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
--------------------- ) 
Appearances: 
ERIC CHANCELLOR, ESQ. 
R. OLIVER DAVID, ESQ. 
Assistant Attorney General 
Cite as: 2019 VI SUPER 21 
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice 
Christiansted, VI 00820 
For the People of the Virgin Islands 
RENEE DOWLING, ESQ. 
Christiansted. VI 
For Eugene Roberts 
KYE WALKER, ESQ. 
The Walker Legal Group 
Christiansted. VI 
For Larry Williams, Jr. 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
(Filed February 21. 2019) 
DONOHUE, SR., Senior Sitting Judge: 
BEFORE THE COURT is a motion tiled by the People of the Virgin Islands to strike the 
notice Larry Williams. Jr.'s tiled to join in the motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial that his-
co.<fefendant, Eugene Roberts. tiled. I For the reasons stated below. the motion will be granted. 
I The title of the People's motion is to strike Williams's motion for judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, new trial. 
But Williams did not liIe a motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial, even though the Coun granted him several 
extensions of time. And in the bod)' of their motion, the People refer to the notice of joinder Williams filed. Substance 
People v. Roberts I People v. Williams 
SX-14-CR-136/ SX-I4-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 20f 10 
BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENTS 
2019 VI Super 21 
,/2 
On or about April 19, 2014, multiple shots were fired at the vicinity of the Frontline nightclub 
on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, resulting in the death of Matthew Vernege, Jr. and injury to several 
others. The perpetrators rode off in a vehicle that later got into a car accident in the vicinity of Estate 
Morning Star. Eugene Roberts and Larry Williams, Jr. were arrested and charged on May 20, 2014 
with several crimes including, inler alia, assault, murder, and unauthorized possession of a firearm 
during the commission ofa crime ofviolence.2 
,/3 
Following ajury trial and several amendments to the charging document, Williams was found 
not guilty of first-degree murder as to Vemege and third-degree assault as to Vernege's girlfriend. 
Kenya Stanley, but guilty oftne lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, first-degree reckless 
endangerment, possession of ammunition, and two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm, one 
of which was during the commission of a crime of violence. Roberts was acquitted of murdering 
Vemege and assaulting Stanley as well as aiding and abetting Williams in committing either crime. 
but guilty of attempted murder in the first degree and first-degree assault as to Roscar Hurtault, a patron 
of the Frontline club, as well as first-degree reckless endangerment, possession of ammunition. and 
three counts of unauthorized possession ofa firearm, two if which were during the commission ofa 
crime of violence. The only counts of which Williams and Roberts were both convicted were reckless 
endangerment, possession of ammunition, and the enhanced and unenhanced firearm cnarges. 
,4 
After the jury returned its verdict. Roberts filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the 
alternative, for a new trial on November 29,2016, which the People opposed on January 10,2019, 
after an extension of time. Williams requested and was granted multiple extensions, but ultimately 
failed to file a post-trial motion. Sentencing was scheduled for February 13, 2019, but continued to 
controls over the Iille of. motion. Cf Anthony \'. FlrstBank V.I .• SS V.I. 224. 22S n.5 (2013). 
, Elijah Felix. Lester Roberts. and Derrick Liburd were also charged. Felix agreed 10 plead gUilty to unauthorized possession 
o( a firearm and was sentenced to two years incarceration. lester Roberts agreed to a dismissal of all charges against him 
wilhout prejudice. Liburd was acquined of.1I chars .. by Ihe Coun aller the close oflhe People's case-in-chief. 
People \'. ROMrls I People \'. Wi/llams 
SX-14-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 3 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
February 22, 2019, due to a conflict of Williams's counsel. In the interim, Williams filed a notice on 
February 14, 2019, joining in Roberts's motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial, specifically 
"adopt[ing] the facts and arguments set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for 
Judgment of Acquittal or for New Trial to the extent that they apply to him." (Def.'s Notice of Joinder 
I, filed Feb. 14,2019.) 
~5 
In response, the People filed a motion to strike Williams'sjoinder,3 contending that the "notice 
seems to be an end run around the Court's Order of January 10, 2019, granting Williams a fifth and 
final extension of the time to file his post-trial motion." (People's Mot. I, filed Feb. 13, 2019.) 
"Williams did not file his post-trial motion ... as ordered," the People point out.ld. Instead, Williams 
seeks "to establish the same feat outside of the time mandated by the Court by joining in Roberts' post-
trial motion." /d. The effect, the People contend, is that "Williams has moved for a judgment of 
acquittal outside of the time allowed by the Court, and without 8n extension of time." Id at 2. Since 
Williams's "Notice was filed a month after his fifth and final extension expired, without any extension 
from the Court and without any showing of excusable neglect ... the Notice of Joinder in Defendant 
Roberts' motion ... must ... be stricken." Id. at 2-3. 
,6 
Because the deadline for Williams to respond the People's motion would come after the 
February 22, 2019 sentencing date, the Court has chosen to rule on the motion without awaiting a 
response from Williams. 
DISCUSSION 
7 
"In general, 'a court has inherent authority to strike any filed paper which it determines to be 
abusive or otherwise improper under the circumstances,''' In re: Asbestos, Catalyst & Silica Toxic 
Dust Exposure Wig., 68 V.1. 507, 515 (Super. Ct. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 
Der Weer v. Hess Oil V,l Corp., 64 V.I. 107, 126 (Super. Ct. 2016». "But it does not follow that courts 
3 Williams served his notice of joinder on the People on February 13. 2019. However, the notice was not med with the 
Court until February 14,2019. 
People v. Roberts I People v. Williams 
SX·I4-CR·136 I SX·14-CR·I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 4 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
should always strike untimely-filed papers just because they were filed late. A motion to strike raises 
a question of propriety rather than of right and for this reason it is addressed to the discretion of the 
court." Der Weer, 64 V.I. at 127 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Hence, when motion papers 
are filed late, courts can strike them, cf Deslin v. People, 64 V.1. 465, 468 n.l (2016), or dismiss an 
untimely motion or disregard an untimely response or reply, assuming excusable neglect were not 
found. Cf Der Weer, 64 V.I. at 127. But the issue raised here is more nuanced than whether Williams 
filed his notice late. 
,8 
By claiming that Williams failed to show good cause, the People also assume that Williams 
had a deadline to join Roberts's motion. In other words, the People assume that Williams filed his 
notice of joinder late because he did not file it before the various deadlines this Court set and extended 
for him to file a post·trial motion had passed. But the deadline for Williams to give notice that he was 
joining in Roberls 's motion cannot also be the same deadline for him to file his own motion because 
"8 notice is not 8 motion, and should not be so treated. A notice does not invite 8 response in opposition 
or a reply. Notices are neither granted nor denied (or dismissed)." Gov 'l of the U.S. v.I. v. 
ServiceMosler Co., £LC, SX·16·CV·700, 2018 V.1. LEXIS 100, "22 (V.1. Super. Ct. Sep. 26, 2018) 
(quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). While 8 motion joined by another party remains 
pending "even if the party who originally filed the motion is later dismissed or . . . withdraw[s] the 
motion," Der Weer v. Hess Oil v.I. Corp., 60 V.I. 91, 100 (Super. Ct. 20 14)(citations omitted), joining 
another party's motion is not the same as filing a motion. Consequently, the People's motion begs the 
more basic question. when must 8 notice of joinder be filed. This is a question of first impression 
because the Virgin Islands rules of procedure are silent on whether and how one party joins another 
party's motion. 
,9 
The general practice in the Virgin Islands has been "for one party to join another party's 
position by notice, not by motion." People v. Rivera, 68 V.I. 393, 422 (Super. Ct. 2018). "Court 
People v. Roberts I Peopl. v. WIlliams 
SX-I4-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page5 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
approval is unnecessary," id, because joinder enhances judicial efficiency. One party who seeks the 
same relief as another party can join in that party's motion or opposition because it cuts back on 
expense and reduces delay. Accord V.I. R. Crim. P. I (d) ("These rules are to be interpreted to provide 
for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness 
in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay."); V.I. R. Civ. P. I ("These rules 
should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, 
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."). Cf ServiceMaster Co., LLC, 2018 
V.1. LEXIS 100 at °10 ("Since twenty-four pages is preferable to sixty-pages, the Court will grant the 
Defendants page limit motion and accept their joint motion to dismiss."); see also Niswander v. Price. 
Waicukauski & Riley LLC. No. I :08-cv-1325-WTL-DML, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2444. °3 n.1 (S.D. 
Ind. Jan. 13,2010) ("Defendant Jennifer Graham has filed a motion to join in the other Defendants' 
motion .... In the future, it is unnecessary for Ms. Graham to file a motion to join; a notice of joinder 
serves the same purpose and reduces the number of entries on the Court's docket because it does not 
require a ruling."). But judicial efficiency is not enhanced if a notice of joinder raises new or different 
arguments than those raised in the motion or opposition or when parties attempt to join motions that 
cannot be extended to them. Cf Shame on You Prods .. Inc. v. Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1142-43 
(C.D. Cal. 2015) (finding notice of joinder improper because the joining parties had not answered and 
could not join a motion for judgment on the pleadings); Molina v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-00894-
lEG (AJB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8056, °4 n.l (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2010) ("[T]the Court ordered that 
the notice of joinder was proper to the extent Wilshire joined in the arguments raised in the Motion to 
Dismiss. but that the Court would not consider the new arguments raised in the notice of joinder."); 
Miss. Band a/Choctaw Indians v. MiSSissippi, Civ. No. J90-0386(B). 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19397, 
*10 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 1991) ("Defendant Mabus may not use the Notice of Joinder to add any new 
issues to the Motion to Dismiss that was filed by the State of Mississippi."). Here, the relief Williams 
People v. Roberts I Pl ople v. Williams 
SX-I4-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-144 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 6 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
requests is the same relief that Roberts requests - acquittal or a new trial, but only "to the extent that 
they apply to him." (Def.'s Notice of Joinder I.) Williams did not raise any new arguments in his 
notice of joinder or request new or different relief. Consequently, Williams's notice of joinder is not 
improper in that regards. But it was filed late. 
,10 
This Court holds that a notice of joinder in a motion must be filed as early as possible, but in 
any event, no later than the time allowed for filing a response since a notice of joinder is a nothing 
more than a response to a motion. Roberts filed his motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial on 
November 29, 2016. For Williams to have timely joined in that motion, he had to give notice within 
fourteen days or by December 13,2016. See D.V.I. Local R. Civ. P. 7.I(e)(I) (applicable via Super. 
Ct. R. 7 and D.V.1. Local R. Crim. P. 1.2). Instead, Roberts filed his notice of joinder over two years 
late. 
II 
When one party joins another party's motion late, courts either excuse the delay or disregard 
the notice of joinder. Compare Croman Corp. v. Gen. Eng 'g Co., No. 2:05-cv-057S-GEB-JFM, 200S' 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39408, ·2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 200S) ("UTC noticed its motions on July 7, 2005. 
On August 19, 200S, Sikorsky and HSI filed a 'Notice of Joinder' to UTC's motions so that the relief 
requested by UTC would apply to them if granted . . .. Even though the 'Notice of Joinder' is untimely, 
the motions will be decided as ifUTC, Sikorsky, and HSI had brought them in the first instance because 
the decision will not adversely affect Croman."), with Tobin v. BC Bancorp, No. 09cv02S6 DMS 
(CAB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87667, ·3-4 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) ("Defendant NDEx West 
LLC filed a Notice of Joinder in Defendant Wells Fargo's motion on July 22, 2010, nearly one week 
after the reply briefs were filed. Because Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to respond to arguments 
as they relate to Defendant NDEx West, the Court finds the Notice of Joinder was untimely filed, and 
declines to address the motion as to Defendant NDEx West."). Croman and Tobin exemplify two of 
the ways in which courts approach untimely notices of joinder. If the moving party would be 
People v. Roberts I People v. WIlliams 
SX-I4-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 7 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
disadvantaged, for example, by not being able to respond to the joining party, then disregarding the 
untimely notice of joinder may be the appropriate course. However, when the outcome would be the 
same even if the joining party joins, then excusing the delay and taking the joinder into consideration 
in ruling on the motion may be appropriate. 
12 
In this instance, the situation is somewhat different insofar as it is the opposing party, the 
People, and not the moving party, Roberts, who opposes Williams's joinder. Moreover, if Williams 
had given timely notice that he was joining Roberts's motion, the People might have been able to 
respond to Williams's joinder or perhaps to tailor their arguments accordingly. But at this point, 
Roberts's motion is fully briefed and to allow Williams to join that motion after the fact would place 
the People at a disadvantage or require the Court to allow the People to file a response now to 
Williams's joinder, which would in tum require granting Williams leave to file a reply. Joinder does 
not enhance judicial economy under these circumstances. 
113 
But beyond the timeliness of Williams's notice,4 the more important concern here is with the 
type of motion that Williams has joined. As Shame on You implicitly recognized, there are certain 
motions that parties cannot join. Substantive motions are among them. There, the federal district court 
rejected the attempt by two defendants to join in a motion filed by other defendants for judgment on 
the pleadings. The court reasoned that the joinder was improper 
because a Rule 12(c) motion is only proper after the pleadings are closed but within 
such time as not to delay the trial. The pleadings are closed for the purposes of Rule 
12(c) once a complaint and answer have been filed, assuming ... that no counterclaim 
or cross-claim is made. 
• Although Williams filed his notice of joinder late, the Court could deny the People's motion to strike because the}' failed 
to show prejudice. "The movant carries the burden of persuasion." Goodwin \'. FUlI',",s,67 V.I. 104, 130 n.19 (Super. Ct. 
2016). As the movant, the People we'" required to show how Williams's delay prejudiced them. Cf Brown \'. People. 49 
V.I. 378. 38~ (2008) (per curiam) ("[T)he determination of excusable neglect is 81 bottom an equitable one. The trial court 
s~ould take Into account all relevant circumstances ... including the danger ofprcjudicc to the People.~ (quotation marks. 
cl~t~ons •. b,:"ckelS, and ellipses omitted)). They did not. So. but for the concerns raised regarding the type of motion 
W,lhams Jomed, the Court could deny the People's motion to strike for failure to show how the dels) impacted them. 
Peop'e \'. Roberts ' Peop'e \'. Williams 
SX-I4-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 8 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
Shame on You Prods, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1142-43 (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). 
Because the joining defendants had not yet answered the complaint, the court rejected their attempt to 
join. See id. at 1143 ("Because Garner and Broken Road have not filed an answer, the pleadings are 
not closed as to them; hence, they cannot join the remaining defendants' motion for judgment on the 
pleadings. In fact, so long as Garner and Broken Road remain parties, the pleadings are not closed and 
the court cannot grant defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings." (citation omitted». 
'114 
Like a motion for summary judgment or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for 
judgment of acquittal necessarily involves an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence as to each 
defendant. Joinder is not proper in this instance. Joining a motion for an extension of time or a motion 
to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief. any of the procedural or legal-sufficiency motions that 
parties may file, may enhance judicial economy, save time and costs, and reduce delay. But joining a 
substantive or a dispositive motion is not proper when it relieves the joining party from carrying its 
own burden in support. Cj Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 688, 693 (Ct. App. 
2006) ("When a party merely joins in a motion for summary judgment without presenting its own 
evidence, the party fails to establish the necessary factual foundation to support the motion."); United 
Slales v. Coffman, 574 F. App'x 541, 558 (6th Cir. 2014) ("[AJ motion for severance is particular to 
the individual making the motion and cannot be joined by other defendants."). See also Schnabel v. 
Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1034 n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) ("As a practical matter, counsel may face a conflict of 
interest if two clients have such diverse interests that their defenses cannot be joined in one motion, 
but that issue is not before us. "). 
'115 
The Court agrees with the People that Williams is attempting "an end run around" the various 
deadlines and extensions already given to him to file his own post-trial motion. But Williams would 
also be circumventing the requirement that he make his own motion with the proper factual and legal 
support. Cj Litwin Corp. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., SX-05-CV-056, 69 V.1. _, __ ; 2018 V.1. 
People v. Roberts I People v. Williams 
SX-l4-CR-I36 I SX-14-CR-144 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page 9 of 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
V.1. LEXIS 104, ·12 (V.I. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2018) ("fN]o court can 'make a movant's arguments for 
him when he has failed to do so.'" (quoting Joseph v. Joseph, SX-04-CV-188, 2015 V.1. LEXIS 43, 
.5 (V.1. Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 2015)} (remaining citation omitted)}. And if the Court were to disregard 
the delay and allow Williams to join in Roberts's motion for judgment of acquittal, it would force the 
Court to undertake an analysis of the sufficiency ofthe evidence as to Williams, but without the benefit 
of briefing from Williams or the People. Joinder should be encouraged when it will increase efficiency 
and reduce cost. But not when the effect is to excuse parties from carrying their respective burdens or 
counsel from fulfilling their professional duties. 
,16 
Finally, the Court acknowledges that the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has recognized 
that ''where a co-defendant properly raises an issue predicated on the same facts from the same trial . 
. . 'it would be manifestly unjust to'" to resolve the issue as to "one co-defendant's case and not the 
other co-defendant's case." Rivera v. People, 64 V.1. 540, 587 (2016) (quoting Basion v. People, 56 
V.I. 634, 645-46 (2013». But the Supreme Court also recognized that it would be unjust only if "the 
People have had the 'opportunity to fully brief the same issue," id (quoting Bas/on, 56 V.I. at 646), 
and ''the facts supporting a motion ... in [one defendant's] case are the same facts that would support 
a motion ... in [the other defendant's] case." Id. at 587-88. If the Court had granted Roberts's request 
for new trial it would manifestly unjust to deny Williams the same relief based solely on the failure of 
Williams's counsel ''to make the same argument," id at 587, but only ''to the extent that the [errors] 
apply to" Williams. (Joinder I.) However, the Court denied Roberts's motion for new trial and none 
of the errors Roberts raised, that also apply to Williams, warrant granting Williams a new trial. 
CONCLUSION 
~17 
For the reasons stated above, the Court holds that a notice of joinder should be filed within the 
same time as a response to a motion or a reply to a response. Williams joined Robert's motion nearly 
two years after the motion was filed and fully briefed. The notice of joinder is untimely. Nonetheless, 
People v. Roberts f People \'. Williams 
SX-I4-CR-136 I SX-14-CR-I44 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Page IOof 10 
2019 VI Super 21 
if Williams joining in Roberts's motion would have had no impact on the outcome of Roberts's motion, 
the Court could overlook the delay and decline to strike Williams's notice. But the Court holds that 
joining a substantive or dispositive motion is not proper because the joining party is seeking the same 
reliefas the movant, but without carrying its own burden in support. Williams cannot join in Robert's 
motion for judgment of acquittal. To the extent Williams is attempting to join in Roberts's motion for 
a new trial, none ofthe errors Roberts mised that apply to Williams warrant gmnting Williams a new 
trial. Accordingly, the Court will gmnt the People's motion and strike Williams's notice of joinder. An 
appropriate order follows. .,-
, 
DONE this M day of Febn.anl 
ATTEST: 
ESTREL 
Clerk'efjJ~~ 
By: