# United States v. Lewis

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · February 8, 2012 · 850 F. Supp. 2d 709

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8697169

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Antun LEWIS
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** February 8, 2012
- **Citations:** 850 F. Supp. 2d 709; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15573; 2012 WL 407173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Oliver
- **Judges:** Oliver
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8697169

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., Chief Judge.
On May 21, 2005, eight children and one adult died in a fire that consumed a house at 1220 East 87th Street (“1220 House”) in the City of Cleveland. One individual was severely burned, but survived. Another resident escaped unscathed. On February 14, 2011, a jury found Antun Lewis (“Lewis” or “Defendant”) guilty of maliciously damaging and destroying by fire the 1220 House in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i). On March 31, 2011, Lewis filed a Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 (ECF No. 324), contending that this court should grant Lewis a new trial in the interest of justice because the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. On June 10, 2011, Lewis filed a second Rule 33 Motion, this one based on newly discovered evidence suggesting that key Government witnesses colluded in fabricating testimony. (ECF No. 332.) The court held a hearing on the latter Motion on August 30, 2011 and September 2, 2011. For the following reasons, which are summarized at pages 87-95, the court grants *711 Lewis’s Motion based on the weight of the evidence. (ECF No. 324.) Because the Motion is granted, Lewis’s Motion based on newly discovered evidence of perjury is dismissed as moot.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 1, 2008, a grand jury indicted Lewis for one count of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i). This statute provides that “[wjhoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building ... or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be” guilty of a violation of the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 844 (f). 1
At trial, the Government had the burden to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) Lewis set a fire to damage or to destroy, or in an attempt to damage or destroy, the 1220 House; (2) that the 1220 House was used in interstate commerce or was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce; and (3) that Lewis acted maliciously. (See Jury Instructions, p. 19, ECF No. 297.) The jury trial commenced on January 24, 2011. (See Transcript of Jury Trial Proceedings, Vols. 1-13, pp. 1-3100.) The jury was instructed that proof of motive was not a necessary element to establish Lewis’s guilt or innocence, and therefore, the Government did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why Lewis committed the arson. (Jury Instructions, p. 25.) The jury, however, was instructed that “the presence or absence of motive is a circumstance which you may consider as bearing on the intent of the Defendant.” (Id.)
For its case-in-chief, the Government called 38 witnesses, including:
• Jennings Dawson, owner of 1220 House (Tr. 154), and Roberta Witt, a Housing Authority officer (Tr. 168), who testified that Medeia Carter, the renter of the house, received Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 8 funding to pay her rent.
• Various family members and friends of the victims of the fire who testified about the lives of the victims. (See, e.g., • Evelyn Martin’s testimony, Medeia Carter’s mother (Tr. 174); Moses Marshall’s testimony, Medeia Carter’s boyfriend (Tr. 539).) The night of the fire, the eight child-victims were having a sleepover at Carter’s home.
• The firefighters who responded to the fire. (See Patrick Mangan’s testimony (Tr. 215); Terry Piazza’s testimony (Tr. 236); Angel Marrero’s testimony (Tr. 244).)
• Surviving victim of the fire and resident of the 1220 House, Capritta Nicole Bell. (Tr. 460.)
• Carmella Smith (Tr. 697) and Charise Frazier (Tr. 736), two cousins who bought marijuana from Lewis and spoke with him about the fire a week after it occurred.
• George H. Hightower III (Tr. 786), a friend of Lewis’s, who allowed Lewis to stay with him the week leading up to the fire. Lewis went to Hightow *712 er’s house shortly after the fire occurred.
• Special Agent Don Illig, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) Agent, who assisted in the investigation of the fire at the 1220 House. (Tr. 933.)
• Sharese Williams, mother of one of the child-victims in the fire, a close friend of victim Medeia Carter, and an acquaintance/friend of Lewis’s. (Tr. 1125.) Her daughter Shauntavia, considered by Lewis to be a sister, was at the sleepover..
• Sharay Williams, daughter of Sharese Williams, who - allegedly spoke with Lewis the morning after the fire. (Tr. 1211.)
• Stephanie Charlene Mitchell, Moses Marshall’s mother. (Tr. 1250.)
• Douglas Smith, a Revol Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer, who testified regarding Lewis’s cell phone records from the night of the fire. (Tr. 1283.)
• Paul McKeever, a jailhouse infoxmant who worked closely with the ATF during the investigation. (Tr. 1405.)
• Jailhouse informants who testified that they heard Lewis state he committed the arson. (See Daniel Id’Deen’s testimony (Tr. 1695); Richard Wheeland’s testimony (Tr. 1804); Anthony Collier’s testimony (Tr. 1904); Cyle Watson’s testimony (Tr. 1974); Christopher Myers’s testimony (2022).)
• Samantha Collins-Taylor, a prostitute and drug user from the west side of Cleveland, who allegedly allowed Lewis to use her house for drugs and sexual purposes several months leading up to the fire. (Tr. 2195.)
• Marion Jackson, Lewis’s alleged lookout and accomplice for the arson. (Tr. 2258.) He is an acquaintance of informant McKeever and prostitute Collins.
For his case-in-chief, Lewis called 7 witnesses, including:
• Teon Marcel Smith, a former resident of 1220 House, who escaped the fire unscathed. (Tr. 2552.)
• Bruce Shannon Thomas, who was present on 87th Street at the time of fire and witnessed the fire. (Tr. 2583.)
• Ricky Chapman, Manager of Security Quality for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (“RTA”). (Tr. 2652.)
On February 14, 2011, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Lewis now moves for an order vacating the jury verdict and granting a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. In its Opposition, the Government contends that the following evidence at trial conclusively shows that it met its burden of proof:
Medeia Carter received HUD Section 8 funding to pay her rent for the 1220 House. According to the lease agreement, Medeia Carter owed $741 per month, all of which was subsidized by HUD. (Tr. 156.) The lease agreement was still in effect at the time of the fire. (Tr. 158.)
Evidence of irregular burn patterns in the house and arson expert testimony indicate that the fire was intentionally set with gasoline. (Tr. 309-14, 328-29.) Testimony of Douglas Smith, a Revol Wireless engineer, that Lewis’s cell phone records show Lewis was in the same cell phone sector 2 as the 1220 House at the time of the fire. (Tr. 1283.) *713 Samantha Collins-Taylor’s testimony that Lewis planned to “burn out” the residents of a house, possibly due to a drug debt owed to Lewis by one or more of the residents. (Tr. 2204-05.)
Marion Jackson’s testimony that Lewis asked him to be a “lookout” for the arson, and that he accompanied Lewis the night of the arson to obtain gas. Jackson further testified that he believed Lewis wanted to burn the house due to a drug debt owed to him. {See Tr. 2244, 2272-87.)
Testimony of Carmella Smith and Charise Fraizer that Lewis told them details about the deaths of the victims a week after the arson. {See Tr. 701-19.) Lewis’s May 21, 2005 statements to investigators that he was in a dispute with one of the child-victim’s mother, Sharese Williams, and that he bought $5.00 worth of gas either the day before or the day of the arson. (Agent Illig’s testimony, Tr. 943, 949.)
The testimonies of six inmates who heard Lewis make incriminating statements about his involvement in the fire. (Paul McKeever’s testimony, Tr. 1444-46,1459-60; Rick Wheeland’s testimony, Tr. 1837-40; Daniel Id’Deen’s testimony, Tr. 1720, 1724; Anthony Collier’s testimony, Tr. 1920-21; Chris Myers’s testimony, Tr. 2031, 34, 75; Cyle Watson’s testimony, Tr. 1983, 85-86.)
On August 30 and September 2, 2011, the court held a hearing regarding Lewis’s Motion based on newly discovered evidence. Lewis called as witnesses:
• Sergeant Russell Jaenke, (ECF No. 354, Tr. 11), who testified that inmate Michael Miller was in the Protective Custody pod of the Cuhayoga County Jail from February 16th until April 2, 2010, (Tr. 15), and that Miller’s stay in this pod coincided with jailhouse informant Paul McKeever’s detention in this pod between February 8, 2010 and April 1,2010. (Tr. 16.)
• Sergeant Phillip Christopher, (Tr. 20), who testified regarding Miller’s commissary purchases, specifically phone card purchases. (Tr. 22.) Further, he testified regarding calls made from Miller’s phone cards. (Tr. 24-28.)
• Inmate Michael Miller, who testified regarding the contents of his Declaration, {See Decl. of Michael D. Miller, ECF No. 332-1), the “newly discovered evidence,” in which he averred, among other things, that McKeever worked with Lewis’s alleged accomplice Marion Jackson, prostitute Sam Collins, and several jailhouse informants in fabricating testimony. {See Testimony of Michael D. Miller, ECF No. 353.)
• Miller’s defense attorney, Jeffrey S. Richardson, (ECF No. 354, Tr. 31), who testified regarding his discussions with Miller concerning Miller’s belief that McKeever had colluded with others to fabricate testimony in the Lewis trial.
• Phillip Reed, (Tr. 48), who shared a residence with Paul McKeever during 2009, and who testified regarding a prior statement he made to defense investigators in which he claimed that a woman by the name of “Sam” visited Paul McKeever. (Tr. 53.) Reed had previously identified a photograph of prostitute Samantha Collins as the relevant “Sam,” but on the stand he testified that it was a “50-50 decision.” (Tr. 56.)
• Herman Ramos, investigator for the Federal Defenders, (Tr. 93), who testified concerning the defense’s investigation into Phillip Reed and methods for photo and photo array identifications.
The Government called one witness:
*714 • Melissa Cantoni (Tr. 115), institutional investigator at the Lorain Correctional Institute, who testified that she did not receive any requests for a meeting from Michael Miller despite Miller’s claim that he reached out to a facility investigator regarding his information about possible perjury in the Lewis trial.
Both sides filed post-hearing briefs on September 12, 2011. (ECF Nos. 356, 357.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “the court may grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(a). Though the rule does not define “interest of justice,” a “paradigmatic use of a Rule 33 motion is to seek a new trial on the ground that ‘the [jury’s] verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” United States v. Munoz, 605 F.3d 359, 373 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Crumb, 187 Fed.Appx. 532, 536 (6th Cir.2006)). 3 Under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, the court has broad discretion to consider both the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence to ensure that there was no miscarriage of justice. United States v. Ashworth, 836 F.2d 260, 266 (6th Cir.1988). In exercising this discretion, the court sits as a “thirteenth juror” to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 266 . Unlike the stricter test for reviewing a motion for acquittal, in deciding a Rule 33 motion based on the weight of the evidence, “the court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir. 1985). However, a jury verdict should be vacated “only in the extraordinary circumstancef ] where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” Ash-worth, 836 F.2d at 266 (quoting United States v. Turner, 490 F.Supp. 583, 593 (E.D.Mich.1979)); see also United States v. Morales, 910 F.2d 467, 468 (7th Cir. 1990) (“If the complete record, testimonial and physical, leaves a strong doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, even though not so strong a doubt as to require a judgment of acquittal, the district judge may be obliged to grant a new trial.”); United States v. Arroyo, 301 F.Supp.2d 217, 225 (D.Conn. 2004) (grant of new trial should be reserved for instances where there is real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted).
Under Rule 33, a defendant may also move for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In general, “Motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored.” United States v. O’Dell, 805 F.2d 637, 640 (6th Cir.1986). Thus, before a new trial will be granted, the defendant must establish that the new evidence: “(1) was discovered only after trial, (2) could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence, (3) is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) would likely produce an acquittal if the case were retried.” United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954, 966 (6th Cir.1982).
III. ANALYSIS
In his Motion, based on the manifest weight of the evidence, Lewis argues that the following issues warrant the granting of a new trial: (1) the dubious credibility of the Government’s key witnesses and *715 inconsistencies in their testimony; (2) the Government’s presentation of contradictory motives for the crime; (3) the nature of the Government’s investigation of the crime; and (4) “other issues,” namely evidence that the court ruled was either inadmissible or admissible for a specific purpose only. The court will address each of these four issues, beginning with a discussion of the fourth point — the significance of evidence not presented at trial, which Lewis argues bears on the issue of innocence. Second, the court will turn its discussion to the Government’s presentation of possible motives. Although the Government did not have to prove a motive in this case, the Government’s attempts to establish a motive provide crucial context. Third, the court will assess the credibility of the Government’s main witnesses. Fourth, the court will address Lewis’s argument concerning the nature of the investigation of the arson and the remaining evidence in the case. Finally, the court will conclude its analysis with a discussion of whether Lewis has met his heavy burden under Rule 33.
A. Evidence Not Presented at Trial
In his Motion, Lewis argues that there are four pieces of evidence not presented to the jury that the court should nevertheless consider in its resolution of his Rule 33 Motion. Specifically, Lewis argues that the court should consider the following evidence:
1. The December 27, 2005 recorded conversation between Jackson and Lewis
On December 27, 2005, alleged accomplice Marion Jackson visited Lewis, who was detained in county jail on unrelated charges, to discuss the fire. Jackson, who had been cooperating with the ATF, wore a recording device. At issue are the statements made by both Lewis and Jackson during the recorded conversation. Lewis argues that the court should consider the December 27th conversation because the conversation is “exculpatory in nature,” “possesses impeachment value,” goes towards Lewis’s innocence, and contradicts Jackson’s testimony that Lewis solicited Jackson to set the fire and act as a lookout for the fire. (Mem. in Supp. of Mot., pp. 83-84, ECF No. 324.) Prior to his trial, Lewis moved to admit this evidence in its entirety. (ECF Nos. 174, 195.) On February 1, 2011, this court denied Lewis’s Motion. (ECF No. 279.) The court determined that Lewis could use a portion of the December 27th conversation for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness on cross-examination, but that Lewis could not admit the entire conversation into evidence due to hearsay considerations. (Id.)
2. The August 21, 2006 recorded conversation between Orlando Stanley and Lewis
On August 24, 2006, the ATF secured a recording device on Orlando Stanley, one of Lewis’s fellow inmates at Belmont Correctional Institution. Lewis contends that Stanley spent 75 minutes attempting to elicit incriminating statements from Lewis. (Mem., p. 85.) Lewis claims that he made no incriminating statements during their conversation. (Id.) Lewis argues that the August 24th conversation should be considered by this court because it is further proof of Lewis’s innocence, and it undermines the credibility of the Government’s six jailhouse informants, all of whom testified that Lewis confessed to them, but were not secured with recording devices during Lewis’s alleged confessions. (Mem., p. 85.) During trial, the court was asked to address the admissibility of the August 24th conversation twice at sidebar. The first time was during the cross-examination of Agent Illig. The court ruled that, based on hearsay considerations, it was not appropriate to admit into evidence the August 24 conversation to show Agent *716 Ulig did not obtain any incriminating statements. (Tr. 1044.) The second time was during the redirect examination of jailhouse informant Paul McKeever. McKeever testified that the ATF did not place a recording device on him for his conversations with Lewis. (Tr. 1652.) McKeever stated that an inmate wearing a recording device would need “six to 12” law enforcement officers to oversee the wired inmate in prison and that no inmate would talk to another inmate with law enforcement around. (Tr. 1652.) Defense counsel motioned for a mistrial in light of the court’s prior exclusion of the Orlando Stanley recording, and argued that McKeever’s testimony that he could not be wired is contradicted by the ATF’s actions of placing recording devices on other inmates, specifically Orlando Stanley. (Tr. 1660-61.) The court questioned defense counsel regarding the relevancy of the August 24th conversation for McKeever’s examination. (Tr. 1661.) Defense counsel admitted that McKeever did not know Orlando Stanley, and reserved its right to address the Motion regarding the August 24th conversation at a later date. (Tr. 1663.) Thus, on the second sidebar, the court did not determine whether the August 24th conversation was inadmissible in its entirety. At the conclusion of trial for that day, the court denied defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial and requested that both parties work to see if they could come to an agreement regarding the extent to which the August 24th conversation might be admissible. (Tr. 1680.) The parties did not proffer to the court any agreement on the issue.
3. The ATF polygraph examinations
On May 31, 2005, ten days after the fire, Lewis voluntarily took an ATF polygraph examination. Lewis argues that this court should consider the results of the polygraph examinations because it shows the “uncertainties, inconsistencies, and contradiction” in the Government’s case. (Mem., p. 87.) Before trial, Lewis moved for an Order allowing him to reference the polygraph examination, not for the truth of the matter asserted within the results, but for the effect of the results upon law enforcement’s conduct. (ECF No. 52.) The Government argued that the results from Lewis’s polygraph examination are contested and would mislead the jury. (ECF No. 91.) On July 12, 2010, the court denied Lewis’s motion because the results of Lewis’s polygraph were in dispute and thus, were likely to confuse the jurors who might place undue weight on the results. (ECF No. 160.) Four days later, on July 16, Lewis filed a Motion to reconsider this court’s previous denial of the motion. (ECF No. 165.) On January 31, 2011, the court denied Lewis’s Motion to Reconsider and concluded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of admitting the polygraph examination is relatively low in comparison with the unfair prejudice that may result. (ECF No. 273.)
A The October 23, 2007 three and one half hour recorded interrogation of Lewis
On October 23, 2007 4 , Cleveland homicide detectives interrogated Lewis for three and one-half hours regarding the fire. The officers video recorded the interrogation. Lewis asserts that his answers *717 to the officers’ questions are further evidence of his innocence. (Mem., p. 88.) Before trial, on May 15, 2009, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress Lewis’s statements within the recorded interrogation because the interrogating officers violated Lewis’s constitutional rights. (ECF No. 22.) In its opposition to the motion, the Government agreed that it would not introduce the recorded interrogation in its case-in-chief, but reserved its right to use the evidence for impeachment purposes if Lewis testified. (ECF No. 30.) On February 11, 2010, this court granted Lewis’s motion to suppress statements made on October 23, 2007, agreeing that they could not be used as evidence by the Government in its case-in-chief. (Court Order, non-document, February 11, 2010.) In fact, the statements were not introduced at trial.
5. Analysis
In his Brief, Lewis acknowledges that prior to or during trial, the court determined that the above-referenced evidence was either inadmissible or admissible for a limited purpose only. Lewis does not challenge the legality of this court’s determinations to exclude such evidence 5 , but asserts that this court should consider this evidence as further support of the “uncertainties, inconsistencies, and contradictions” in the Government’s case. (Mem., p. 87.) To support his contention, Lewis cites to several cases that set forth the district judge’s obligations when deciding a Rule 33 motion.
Although courts have emphasized that a grant of a new trial should be reserved for cases where there is a “real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted,” United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir.1992)), Lewis has not pointed to, and none of his cited cases state, that a court can consider facts that were not presented at trial in its Rule 33 determination. Indeed, one of the cited cases, United States v. Parelius, suggests the court cannot do so. 83 F.Supp. 617 (D.Haw.1949). In Parelius , the court granted the defendant’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial because it believed that the evidence did not support a verdict for first degree murder. Id. In making its determination, the district court “disregarded all grounds advanced other than the weight and sufficiency of the evidence as a whole.” Id. at 618 . Specifically, the district court declined to consider the affidavits of two jurors that showed the jurors would have never joined in the verdict if they knew the verdict called for life imprisonment. Id. Instead, the district court considered evidence presented at trial — the testimony of witnesses, both lay and expert, testimony of the defendant, the indictment, and other “uncontradicted evidence.” Id. at 618-22 . The Government contends that the court cannot consider Lewis’s additional issues because the court is limited to the evidence produced at trial. (Mem. in Opp’n, p. 6, ECF No. 327 (quoting Ashworth, 836 F.2d at 266 (holding appellate court “limited to examining the evidence produced at trial to determine whether the district court’s determination that the evidence does not ‘preponderate heavily against the verdict’ is a clear and manifest *718 abuse of discretion”)).) This court agrees. Rule 33 affords trial judges broad discretion to determine whether or not a new trial is warranted in the “interest of justice,” yet such discretion is not untethered. The court must make its determination and weigh the evidence as if it is a “thirteenth juror.” See Ashworth, 836 F.2d at 266 ; United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578, 592 (6th Cir.2007). The court would be exceeding its role by considering evidence not presented to the twelve jurors. For the reasons stated above, the court will not consider these additional issues and will only consider the evidence presented at trial.
B. The Government’s Presentation of Possible Motives
Lewis argues that the Government presented two contradictory and incoherent motives for the crime: (1) that Lewis was owed money for a drug debt; and (2) that Lewis was upset at Sharese Williams for taking his clothes in retaliation for his failure to comply with the conditions of bonds she posted on his behalf in separate criminal proceedings. As noted above, 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) requires the Government to show Lewis acted with malice, but does not require the Government to prove Lewis’s motive in committing the crime. The court recognizes that the Government had no obligation to put forward proof of motive. However, given the absence of physical evidence connecting Lewis to the crime, the Government did present testimony bearing on his motive, and the question of why Lewis would commit the crime therefore became a pervasive theme throughout trial. Further, the court did instruct the jury that motive could be considered “as bearing on the intent of the Defendant.” (See Jury Instruction No. 19.) Consequently, Lewis’s arguments concerning the Government’s presentation of possible motives warrants some discussion by the court.
1. The bond dispute with Sharese Williams
The first possible motive proffered by the Government was that Lewis was angry with Sharese Williams for confiscating his clothing in retaliation for his having failed to appear at a court hearing while he was out on bond, for which she was a signatory. Sharese Williams is a nursing assistant who lost her daughter Shauntavia Mitchell in the fire at the 1220 House. (Tr. 1061-1063.) Her daughter Shauntavia had been staying with Medeia Carter at the 1220 House since she moved out of Medeia’s neighborhood on or about Mother’s Day of 2005. (Tr. 1063.) She had been a good friend of Medeia Carter’s for many years — they grew up together — and often spent time with her children at Medeia’s house. (Tr. 1063-1064.) The night of the fire, her daughter Shauntavia was over at Medeia’s house for a sleepover; Lewis was supposed to drive her other children over to Medeia’s house but did not do so. (Tr. 1105-06.)
Sharese testified that she met Lewis when he was 15 years old — she had seen him hanging out on the street with other guys. (Tr. 1065.) Her boyfriend at the time knew Lewis, felt sorry for him, and convinced Sharese to let Lewis stay in her home with her family. (Tr. 1130.) On cross, she testified that over time, the family “loved him. My kids called him their brother, and that was my son. Nothing sexually.... We were a family.” (Tr. 1130.) She testified that she is still on friendly terms with Lewis. (Tr. 1084.)
In April of 2005, a month before the fire, Sharese signed off on two bonds for Lewis to ensure his appearance in criminal court proceedings. (1074-75) On the first, she made a payment of $785 to the bond company, and on the second she made a payment of $150. (Tr. 1075.) A couple of days after her move to her new house, *719 Sharese took Lewis to scheduled court proceedings, dropping him off at the courthouse. (Tr. 1084-85.) Later in the day, she saw Lewis again, who told her that his sentencing had been continued; she subsequently discovered that this was a lie and that he had not shown up at court. (Tr. 1088, 1090-91.) Sharese was very upset “because he skipped bond on my name. When you skip bond, that mean the bounty hunters is coming to your house.... My kids was going to be terrified.” (Tr. 1091— 92.) She contacted him and told him how upset she was and that he needed to turn himself in. (Tr. 1092-1093.) She then testified that Lewis told her that he would turn himself in, and that she should come and pick him up near E. 84th Street. (Tr. 1093, 1094.) When she arrived, she saw him, called out to him, and told him to get in the car, but he ran away instead. (Tr. 1093. ) Sharese testified this incident, which took place perhaps one or two days before the fire, made her more upset. (Tr. 1094. ) She called Lewis repeatedly, but he would not answer, or he would place the call on hold and play music. (Tr. 1095-1097.)
When asked whether Lewis was angry with her, she answered, “I don’t know. Why would he be angry with me?” (Tr. 1099.) She added: “if you made an agreement — I mean, if you made an agreement, you had me come down there on 84th to get you, why would you be mad at me and you made this agreement to go to jail?” (Tr. 1099.) She then testified that in an effort to get in touch with him she went to Lewis’s mother’s house and “retained his clothes.” (Tr. 1100.) Her objective was to get Lewis to come to her home to change his clothes, at which point she or her kids would call 911 to have Lewis arrested. (Tr. 1101-02.) Regarding her having taken his clothing, she admitted that Lewis never called her to threaten her or to express anger. (Tr. 1140.) She testified that she saw Medeia the Wednesday before the fire and told her about her plans. (Tr. 1103.)
About half an hour after the fire had been reported, Sharese’s daughter Sharay called Sharese at work to let her know that Medeia Carter’s house was on fire. (Tr. 1109.) When she later learned that someone had died in the fire, she left work to go to the scene of the fire; on her way there, she got a phone call in which she learned that three other children could not be found, including her daughter Shauntavia. (Tr. 1111.) When she arrived at the scene, she was stopped by her brother, who told her that her daughter was dead. (Tr. 1111.) At some point in the early morning after the fire, Lewis came over to her house on 106th Street, where family members and friends of the victims had convened. (Tr. 1114,1129.)
At trial, only George Hightower testified in support of the theory that Lewis might have committed the arson because he was upset over the fact that Sharese had obtained Lewis’s clothing from Lewis’s mother’s house. (Tr. 804-05.) 6 A week before the fire, Lewis lived with Hightower at Hightower’s residence. (Tr. 793.) High-tower overheard a phone conversation Lewis had with his mother regarding Sharese Williams taking his clothes. (Tr. 797.) Hightower described Lewis as upset by the incident. (Tr. 796.) Hightower suggested to Lewis that “if I was you, I’d burn the house down.” (Tr. 806.)
*720 Lewis contends that this motive makes no sense in light of the fact that Sharese Williams did not even reside at the 1220 House. Lewis had lived with Sharese pri- or to staying with Hightower, and he also assisted Sharese with her May 2005 move to a new house a few weeks before the fire. (Tr. 1079, 1083.) The Government responds that there is a reasonable connection between Sharese Williams and the 1220 House — Sharese’s daughter would usually stay with Medeia Carter at the 1220 House, while Sharese was at work. (Mem. in Opp’n, p. 52.) The testimony, however, revealed that Lewis considered Sharese’s children to be his siblings. Sharese’s daughter, Sharay Williams, 15 years old at the time of trial, testified that she cares for Lewis as a brother. (Tr. 1213.) The night of the fire, she was at her mother’s new home on 106th Street and Union Ave., but was hoping to join her sister Shauntavia at the 1220 House. (Tr. 1219.) After receiving a call at around 3:24 a.m. notifying her of the fire at Medeia Carter’s house, Sharay called her mother to let her know. (Tr. 1225.) She testified that Lewis cried when she subsequently informed him that Shauntavia, whom he considered a little sister, had died in the fire. (Tr. 1234.) Based on the phone records, she had a 24-minute conversation with Lewis at 6:04 a.m., three hours after the fire, and that is when she believes she told him about Shauntavia’s death. (Tr. 1236.) She was not aware of any threats Lewis made to her mother as a result of her mother having confiscated his clothing. (Tr. 1237.) She admitted on cross that Lewis used to walk Shauntavia to the bus, look out after her and all of the kids. (Tr. 1239.)
2. The drug debt motive
While only Hightower testified that the possible motive for the arson was the bond money, a number of the Government’s witnesses testified that a drug debt owed to Lewis was the motive for the crime. These witnesses were: the alleged accomplice Marion Jackson; the jailhouse informants Paul McKeever, Anthony Collier, Daniel Id’Deen, Richard Wheeland, Cyle Watson, and Christopher Myers; and former drug addict and prostitute Samantha Collins-Taylor. Lewis argues that these witnesses colluded to fabricate the drug-debt motive, and that the evidence ties all of these witnesses to jailhouse informant Paul McKeever, who had a reputation of working with law enforcement on cases pending against fellow prisoners. The court discusses the credibility of these witnesses later in its Opinion, but notes now that their testimony regarding a possible drug debt was greatly undermined by the testimony of the witnesses actually connected to the 1220 House and the victims of the fire. (See Evelyn Martin’s testimony, Tr. 202-03 (testifying that her daughter, Medeia Carter, did not use drugs); Capritta Nicole Bell’s testimony, Tr. 497-98 (testifying that neither she nor Medeia Carter used drugs); Sharese Williams’s testimony, Tr. 1133-34 (testifying that she never heard Lewis state that Medeia Carter or Capritta Nicole Bell owed him money for drugs, and further, that neither used drugs); Moses Marshall’s testimony, Tr. 594 (testifying that Medeia Carter did not use drugs).)
The testimony of Caprita Nicole Bell (“Bell” or “Nicole”) was particularly important in light of the fact that alleged accomplice Marion Jackson and several of the jailhouse informants testified that the fire was specifically meant for Nicole, and that Lewis made statements concerning a “bitch Nicole.” (See Marion Jackson’s testimony, Tr. 2284 (Lewis answered call shortly before setting fire with, “is the bitch Nicole in the house?”); Paul McKeever’s testimony, Tr. 1450 (Lewis “mentioned a girl named Nicole.”); Daniel Id’Deen’s testimony, Tr. 1716 (heard Lewis state fire was “meant for the bitch Ni *721 cole”); Richard Wheeland’s testimony, Tr. 1839 (Lewis stated “it wasn’t intended for the kids, it was meant for Nicole”); Anthony Collier’s testimony, Tr. 1919-20 (heard Lewis “talk about this girl named Nicole” and that Nicole “got burned but she still looked good”).)
Nicole is a nursing student who was living at the 1220 House at the time of the fire, which she survived despite incurring severe burns. (Tr. 461, 487.) At the time of the fire, she had known Lewis for a couple years — she knew him through Sharese and Sharay Williams, and generally from the neighborhood. (Tr. 468^169.) Medeia Carter had taken Nicole into her home after Nicole had conflicts with her mother; Nicole considered Medeia to be an aunt. (Tr. 496.) She testified that Lewis once tried to make a “move” on her by kissing her, but she “told him no, and that was it.” (Tr. 470.) She admitted that he was always nice to her in her presence, and that he never threatened her because she would not kiss him. (Tr. 499.) She testified that Lewis treated the children that were in the 1220 House as his cousins, and considered victim Shauntavia “Tay-Tay” Mitchell to be his little sister. (Tr. 503.)
Asleep when the fire started, she was awakened by the smell of smoke. Bell thought that Medeia Carter might have accidentally left the stove on. (Tr. 482-83.) She testified that she got out of bed, walked downstairs towards the kitchen to try to turn the stove off, but the smoke was too heavy, and ended up escaping the house through the basement, where she saw Teon Smith, who escaped the fire uninjured. (Tr. 484, 487-89.) Like Bell, Smith was a family friend whom Medeia had allowed to stay in the 1220 House because she “didn’t like the conditions [Smith] was living under.” (Tr. 2555.) Once out, and before fire trucks and rescue units appeared on the scene, Bell observed people from the neighborhood trying to get into the house in order to help. (Tr. 492.) When rescue units arrived, she was taken to a hospital, where she was treated for second degree burns to her feet, face, neck, and left arm, and third degree burns on her right arm. (Tr. 492-93.)
On cross, she testified that she is not a drug user, and was not a drug user at the time of the events of this case. (Tr. 497.) She also testified that she never saw Medeia Carter engage in any drug-related activity. (Tr. 498.) She described Medeia as a generous woman who would take care of people in the neighborhood, including an elderly neighbor. (Tr. 497-98.) Medeia Carter kept an immaculate household. (Tr. 505.)
Bell testified that around October 5th, 2007, she had a meeting with ATF Special Agent John Gregg and Special Agent Illig, which made her extremely upset. (Tr. 512.) She testified that the Agents thought she was involved in the arson, and that she owed Antun money for drugs. (Tr. 527-528.) She denied both accusations. (Tr. 528.)
S. Discussion
While the court is mindful of the fact that the Government did not have to prove a motive in this case, the foregoing reflects that over the course of the trial, the Government’s key witnesses presented two starkly different narratives. The first narrative was that of the witnesses who were connected to the victims of the fire, through friend or family relationships, experienced the fire themselves, knew the neighborhood, and knew the Defendant. Those connected to the fire related that no one at the 1220 House used drugs, let alone purchased drugs from Lewis. They further related that Lewis had no conflict with anyone in that home; indeed, several of the victims were like family to him. *722 While he may have been in the middle of a dispute with Sharese Williams at the time of the fire, Sharese did not even reside at the 1220 House, and in fact, Lewis knew where she lived. The second narrative was that presented by the alleged accomplice in the arson, Marion Jackson, and Sam Collins, a former crack — addict and prostitute from the west side of Cleveland — with the corroboration of a group of jailhouse informants — who claimed to know Lewis through his drug-related activity. This group of witnesses related that Lewis planned to set the 1220 House on fire because of a drug debt.
However, as is explained more fully below, serious concerns were raised regarding the credibility of all of the witnesses who testified regarding this drug debt motive. These witnesses also happened to be the Government’s key witnesses, as they either placed Lewis at the scene of the crime or testified that Lewis made incriminating statements concerning the fire. No other evidence was presented to tie Lewis to the arson. In light of the fact that it was the Government’s key witnesses who testified to a possible drug debt motive, the court finds it difficult to fully divorce the question of Lewis’s motive from the necessary elements of the Government’s case-in-chief. With this in mind, the court turns to the credibility of the Government’s main witnesses.
C. The Credibility of the Government’s Witnesses
1. Marion Jackson
The Government’s case-in-chief centered around the testimony of Marion Jackson (“Jackson”). As Lewis’s alleged accomplice in the arson and the only person claiming to have seen him at the scene of the crime, he was the Government’s key witness. Lewis contends that Jackson’s testimony is “patently incredible, consisting of material contradictions, facts that defy physical realities, and facts that just do not make any sense.” (Mem. in Supp., p. 46, ECF No. 324.) Lewis points to eight specific contradictions or inconsistencies that he argues, renders the guilty verdict a “manifest injustice.” (Id. p. 47). The court will first summarize Jackson’s testimony. Second, the court will address each contradiction or inconsistency argued by Lewis. Third and finally, the court will assess the credibility of Jackson’s testimony.
a. Jackson’s testimony
i. Marion Jackson
At the time of the May 21, 2005 fire, Jackson was approximately 55 years old, and had an extensive thirty-year criminal record that includes multiple theft-related offenses (Tr. 2330-34); for half of his life, he had been “in some sort of a facility environment.” (Tr. 2262, 2264, 2379.) During the events of this case, Jackson suffered from various health conditions, including heart problems, diabetes, breathing problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder, for which he took medications. (Tr. 2337.) After having come forward to law enforcement concerning his role in the fire, Jackson stated that the Government helped him change his name, and that he chose the name “Michael Alexander Knight” after the fictional crime fighter, the “Knight Rider,” from the television series of the same name. (Tr. 2429.) Later at trial, it was revealed that he changed his name with the help of his court-appointed defender, Jaime Serrat. Regarding Jackson’s choice of name, Serrat testified that “Marion sometimes acts like a child ... and sometimes things he says, things he does, it would remind me of a child. I mean, somebody with a low-level intelligence and — that’s—that’s the best I can describe.” (Tr. 2509-10.)
*723 ii. Jackson’s connection to Lewis
Jackson testified that he met Lewis through a prostitute named “Sam,” who was allegedly an acquaintance of Lewis. (Tr. 2268.) 7 Specifically, Jackson testified that he met Lewis after accompanying Sam on a walk to the corner of West 25th and Lorain on the west side of Cleveland, where she “had to go see somebody,” namely Lewis. (Id) 8 On direct, he could not remember a date or time for this first encounter with Lewis; on cross, when presented with his initial statement to law enforcement, he admitted that it was somewhere around August of 2004. (Tr. 2375.) Jackson failed to recall where he and Sam were prior to walking to that street corner to meet Lewis. (Tr. 2341.)
During that first meeting, Jackson claimed that Lewis was under the impression that Jackson was “turning a trick” with Sam, meaning he was having sex with her, and Lewis told Jackson that he could charge him money for time spent with Sam. (Tr. 2269.) Jackson testified that Lewis then wanted to know more about Jackson; Jackson disclosed some personal information to Lewis, including the fact that he had a criminal background and had “done time.” (Tr. 2270.) However, Jackson would not tell Lewis the crimes for which he had been incarcerated. (Tr. 2380.) Based on that first meeting, Jackson concluded that Lewis was Sam’s pimp on the west side. (Tr. 2341.) Despite testifying that he met Lewis through Sam, Jackson testified on direct that he had no idea who Sam was, knew only her first name and that she “hung around” on the west side, where he assumed that she was a crack addict and a prostitute. (Tr. 2298.) On cross, despite maintaining that he did not have a close relationship with Sam, he admitted to previously telling law enforcement that he would occasionally “stop and have ... a soda or a pop” with her and that Sam wanted him to be her “security blanket.” (Tr. 2340.)
Jackson testified that he had several conversations with Lewis after their first meeting, but could not recall specific dates or times. (Tr. 2271.) Jackson did, however, recall a specific incident where Lewis wanted him “to pick up an envelope and bring it to him.” (Tr. 2271.) Jackson “took it as a test,” delivered the envelope to Lewis and told him not to “test” him any more. (Tr. 2271.) Again, Jackson could not recall a date, time or location in relation to this incident, claiming that he could “only remember various things ... and that’s about all I can say.” (Tr. 2381.)
According to Jackson, in the months before the fire, Lewis came to trust him and “thought more highly of [him] than he did the average guys on the street.” (Tr. 2379.) Jackson noted that, during the time he knew Lewis, Lewis owned at least two cell phones — one cell phone to sell drugs and the other cell phone for girls. (Tr. 2203.) On cross-examination, Jackson admitted that, prior to his testimony, he had not revealed to law enforcement that he knew Lewis owned two cell phones. (Tr. 2381.) Further, he admitted that he did not provide ATF Agent Gregg with his own cell phone number when he took his statement in September of 2005, because “I didn’t remember my cell number because I lost my phone and I don’t — I’m not *724 good with numbers.” (Tr. 2346.) Thus, his accounts of cell phone communications between himself and Lewis went uncorroborated.
Although at various points in his testimony, Jackson could not recall times, dates, numbers, and locations, he recalled that “two days before” the fire, Antun came to see him to “say that he had a job that he wanted done.” (Tr. 2272.) Specifically, he “wanted a house set fire ... because somebody owed him some money.” (Tr. 2272.) Jackson believed that it was “either for drugs or something.” (Tr. 2272.) Lewis offered Jackson $1,500 to set the fire, but Jackson declined the offer. (Tr. 2273.) Lewis told Jackson that if he did not do it, Lewis would tell the police that Jackson did it, because he knew Jackson had a criminal history. (Tr. 2273.)
iii. Jackson’s alleged involvement in the arson
According to Jackson, Lewis called Jackson on the night of May 20, 2005, and told him to meet him on the east side because he wanted to see him; he instructed Jackson to wear dark clothing. (Tr. 2275.) Jackson did not think that Lewis’s invitation had anything to do with the fire. (Tr. 2275.) Jackson took two buses out to the east side, and got off on Superior Avenue near East 85th Street at around 9:30 p.m., but testified that he could be wrong about his arrival time because he did not have his watch and it was dark outside. (Tr. 2274-75.) Once he arrived at Superior, he met Lewis on that avenue, and the two shared a beer for a few minutes. (Tr. 2278-79.) Notably, Jackson did not recall seeing Lewis in a van or any other vehicle that night; Jackson testified that he “didn’t even know [Lewis] had a vehicle.” (Tr. 2449.) 9
The two then walked down East 87th Street toward Kosciuszko Avenue. Jackson recalled that, as he and Lewis stood on 87th Street near the 1220 House, he smelled food and saw about 20 people at a party on an open lot on East 87th Street. (Tr. 2285.) When they arrived at the 1220 House, Lewis pointed at the house and indicated it was the house he wanted set on fire. (Tr. 2280.) Jackson testified that he refused to set the fire, but that he agreed to be the “lookout” because he feared that he would be blamed for the fire or killed. (Tr. 2280.)
Jackson and Lewis then walked back toward Superior where Lewis went to pick up two cans — one made of plastic and the other of metal — near a building that was under construction. (Tr. 2281.) 10 Both men then walked to a gas station, “Citgo,” on Superior, where, according to Jackson, Lewis paid $5.00 for gas and filled both gas cans. (Tr. 2283). Jackson claimed that he was standing on the sidewalk when the cans were being filled by Lewis. (Tr. 2282.) He knew that Lewis purchased $5.00 worth of gasoline because he “saw him with a $5 bill in his hand.” (Tr. 2283.) On cross-examination, Jackson admitted that, in September of 2005, he told Special Agent Gregg that Lewis obtained gas at a station located on East 79th Street and St. Clair, not East 76th and Superior, which is about a mile away. (Tr. 2388.) He did not correct this account when he testified before the Grand Jury in October 2008, raising the gas station on East 76th and Superior for the first time at trial. He admitted that, prior to trial, ATF agents *725 took him to 79th and St. Clair, where he learned that there was no gas station at that location. (Tr. 2390.) Jackson testified that his “calculations was wrong” with respect to his prior statements concerning the location of the gas station. (Tr. 2457.)
Once Lewis filled both gas cans, Jackson stated that he and Lewis walked back up Superior and turned on East 86th Street, walking towards Kosciuzszko Avenue, where they turned the corner and walked to East 87th Street. (Tr. 2283.) Once on East 87th, Lewis’s cell phone rang, at which point he put the cans down and answered: “Is the bitch Nicole in the house?” 11 (Tr. 2284.) According to Jackson, Lewis did not make any other statement to the person on the phone. (Tr. 2284. ) Lewis then picked up the cans and quickened his pace, heading toward the 1220 House. (Tr. 2284.) Jackson stated that, as they arrived at the house, he crossed to the other side of the street and walked one or two houses down, where he stood still and observed the scene because “Antwan would have said that I set the fire or else I would have been dead.” (Tr. 2285-86.) 12 As Jackson stood as a lookout, Lewis disappeared between the 1220 House and a neighboring house. (Tr. 2285. ) Jackson then saw flames coming out of a window and from underneath the front door of the home. (Tr. 2287.) As the flames were coming out, Jackson walked back down East 87th Street toward Superior. As he walked away from the fire, Jackson stated that he turned around one last time to have a look at the scene, and he saw “Antwan ... standing right there.” (Tr. 2287, 2393-94.) Regarding the alleged party down the street, Jackson stated that the party was “going on for quite a while” and that once the house caught on fire, attendants from the party reacted and ran over to the house. (Tr. 2391-92.) Jackson testified that on Superior, he immediately got on a bus heading back to the west side. (Tr. 2288.) On cross-examination, Jackson testified that he vomited on the bus but that the bus driver did not stop the bus after he did so. (Tr. 2398-99.)
Jackson saw Lewis on the west side of Cleveland one time after the fire. (Tr. 2289.) Lewis asked Jackson if he had said anything regarding the fire and Jackson denied having done so; Jackson suggested that Lewis “not bother” him anymore. (Tr. 2289-90.) Shortly after the fire, Jackson learned that children had died in the fire, but he did not go to law enforcement because he had had “run-ins with law enforcement before” and didn’t have “too much faith in them.” (Tr. 2991.)
iv. Jackson’s subsequent incarceration on unrelated charges and connection to Paul McKeever
On August 3, 2005, just a couple of months after the tragic fire at the 1220 House, Jackson was arrested and ultimately charged with kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and attempted felonious assault. (Tr. 2348, 2360, 2361.) Based on the seriousness of the charged offenses and his extensive criminal record, bond was set at $100,000, which Jackson could not afford to post. (Tr. 2361-62.) The day before his arrest, Jackson had moved out of his old apartment building, which he said was in an area frequented by prostitutes, and into a new apartment building that was close to *726 a hospital. (Tr. 2348.) Jackson admitted that his arrest the very next day was devastating. (Tr. 2348.)
Jackson testified that Lewis was also imprisoned in the same county jail on charges unrelated to the fire. (Tr. 2394.) During his cross-examination, Jackson admitted that he told law enforcement that Lewis told other inmates at the county jail that “he had beaten the girl before he set the fire,” and that Lewis in turn told Jackson that he claimed to have “beaten the girl” in order to throw off investigators. (Tr. 2394.) Yet, Jackson also admitted having told law enforcement that he did not have any conversations with Lewis for the period that they were both detained at the county jail. (Tr. 2395.) When asked whether he agreed that his statements are contradictory, Jackson replied: “My calculations was wrong.” (Tr. 2395.)
Jackson further testified that, for a period of six weeks during his detention, he shared a “jail pod” with Paul McKeever, an inmate whom Jackson knew from two prior imprisonments and described as an “acquaintance.” (Tr. 2363.) Jackson was in the same pod with McKeever on a daily basis from August 11, 2005 to September 30,2005. (Tr. 2363.)
In jail, Jackson watched a TV news story concerning the children that passed away in the fire. (Tr. 2291, 2368-69.) He claimed that the story “immediately” bothered him and that he “couldn’t bear it anymore;” he “started crying and [] was really upset behind it and [ ] went to lay down.” (Tr. 2291-92.) McKeever came to him and asked him what was wrong; Jackson disclosed that he “knew of the fire” and that he met “Antwan ... through a prostitute.” (Tr. 2293.) McKeever told him that he knew somebody he could talk to and that he would call on Jackson’s behalf. (Tr. 2293.) McKeever connected Jackson to Fire Marshal Ray McCarthy and ATF Special Agent John Gregg. (Tr. 2293.) On September 30, 2005, during a three-to-four-hour meeting, Jackson told McCarthy and Gregg about the fire. (Tr. 2293, 2374.) 13 Initially, Jackson discussed the details of the fire as if he had overheard these details from other inmates; however, after breaking down in tears because he “needed to get this off [his] conscience” he confessed that he was involved with the fire. (Tr. 2294-95.) Jackson gave McCarthy and Gregg a statement of the events that occurred on May 20 to 21, 2005, written by Gregg and signed by Jackson, a drawing of the cans allegedly used by Lewis on that date, and a drawing of the 87th Street location with an “X” marking the position where Jackson stood during the incident. (Tr. 2296-97).
Jackson claimed that he received no promises from Agent Gregg for his confession on that day. (Tr. 2295.) Later on in the investigation, Jackson did receive immunity for his testimony, but stated he understood that he could still be prosecuted for his involvement in the arson. (Tr. 2300, 2401.) He further testified that he received money from the ATF. (Tr. 2301-03.) On direct examination, Jackson admitted that the ATF gave him $5,800 from August 15, 2006 to January 12, 2011. (Tr. 2301. ) He further agreed that he received housing funds of $14,000 to move him to a new location for his safety, $236 for storage of his belongings, $62.90 for a U-Haul rental, and $72.94 for electrical services and lodging expenses. (Tr. 2302-03.)
On cross-examination, Jackson agreed that his case for kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and attempted felonious assault was dismissed for want of prosecution be *727 cause no prosecutor or witnesses came to his November 29, 2005 trial. (Tr. 2402.) Jackson was released from jail. (Tr. 2404.) In December of 2005, ATF agents wired Jackson and sent him to visit Lewis in jail in an attempt to elicit incriminating statements; Jackson met with Lewis at a visiting booth where they were separated by a glass window and could communicate through phones only. (Tr. 2406-12.) Jackson asked Lewis if he had any idea who committed the arson, why they did it, and whether Lewis was there when it happened. (Tr. 2410-11.) Lewis was not charged for the arson after this failed attempt to elicit statements. (Tr. 2421.) In March of 2006, however, Jackson was recharged for the offenses that had previously been dismissed. (Tr. 2421.) At this point in time, Jackson was out on personal bond. (Tr. 2422.) At a bench trial, he was found guilty of misdemeanor assault. (Tr. 2421-22.) At his July 26th, 2006, sentencing, he was placed on intense supervised probation for the crime. (Tr. 2422.) On cross-examination, Jackson admitted that just two days later, he violated his probation by assaulting another woman. (Tr. 2424.) Jackson pled guilty to assaulting this woman. (Tr. 2424.) He further testified that Agent Gregg was present at his probation violation hearing and that he was placed back on probation, but warned by the sentencing judge that he would he be sent to jail if he got into trouble again, regardless of whom he brought from the ATF on his behalf. (Tr. 2423-25.)
b. Analysis
Under a Rule 33 Motion inquiry, this court has discretion to consider the credibility of a witness. Ashworth, 836 F.2d at 266 . Jackson is the only witness who testified to firsthand knowledge of how Lewis committed the arson on 1220 East 87th Street. Thus, Jackson’s testimony is critical evidence regarding the issue of whether Lewis maliciously set the fire. The court does not overlook the fact that Jackson, in addition to being the only witness to the crime, was also Lewis’s alleged accomplice. While uncorroborated accomplice testimony alone can support a conviction, United States v. King, 288 Fed.Appx. 253, 256 (6th Cir.2008), the Sixth Circuit warns that this type of testimony should be given more caution than other testimony when weighing its credibility. See 6th Cir. Pattern Jury Instruction 7.08.
The court finds several aspects of Jackson’s testimony deeply troubling. Jackson often failed to recall critical information and admitted to a number of “miscalculations” concerning key facts. Certain aspects of his testimony were in conflict with other competent evidence presented by the Government or were uncorroborated. Certain portions of his testimony even raised questions about whether he knew Lewis and was at the scene of the crime. It is clear that Jackson’s testimony presented a salient credibility question for the jury.
In his Motion, Lewis points to eight specific contradictions or inconsistencies in Jackson’s testimony that, collectively, warrant a new trial: (i) other evidence and Jackson’s own statements contradict Jackson’s testimony that Lewis had a conversation with him in county jail after the May 20, 2005 fire; (ii) there is no evidence other than Jackson’s testimony to show that Jackson vomited on the RTA bus after his involvement with the fire; (iii) there is no evidence other than Jackson’s testimony to show that a party occurred in an open lot on the same street as the 1220 House; (iv) the testimony of Bruce Thomas, a neighborhood resident that was standing outside on 87th Street right before the fire, contradicted Jackson’s testimony; (v) there is no evidence to corroborate Jackson’s testimony that Lewis wanted to set the house on fire because a resident of the house owed him *728 money for drugs; (vi) Lewis’s cell phone records contradict Jackson’s testimony; (vii) Jackson’s testimony regarding the trip to the gas station is inconsistent with other evidence and Jackson’s own prior statements; and (viii) Jackson’s testimony regarding the sequence of events the night of the fire was contradictory and not supported by the evidence. Some of the alleged contradictions or inconsistencies referenced above are more damaging to Jackson’s credibility than others. The court finds that collectively, however, these inconsistencies and contradictions render Jackson’s credibility dubious. Further, Lewis points to the timing of Jackson’s cooperation with law enforcement and benefits received thereafter, and argues that Jackson had a motivation to lie.
i. Contradictory statements concerning conversations with Lewis in Cuyahoga County Jail after the fire
Lewis argues that Jackson offered contradictory statements to law enforcement officers concerning his interactions with Lewis in Cuyahoga County Jail (“county jail”) a few months after the fire. (Mem., pp. 29-30.) On cross, he admitted telling ATF Agent Gregg on September 30, 2005, that when Lewis arrived at the county jail, Lewis told other inmates that he had beaten “the girl” before he set the fire, and that he told Jackson that the only reason he was claiming to have beaten the girl was to throw off investigators. (Tr. 2394.) In the same statement to ATF Agent Gregg, however, Jackson also stated that he did not have any conversation with Lewis when he was brought to the county jail. (Tr. 2395.) Lewis further notes that during the period in which both Jackson and Lewis were detained at the county jail, they were housed on completely separate floors of the jail. (Mem. in Supp., p. 29.) When he was confronted with his contradictory statements, Jackson responded that his “calculations was wrong.” (Tr. 2395.)
The Government contends that Jackson’s prior inconsistent statements to law enforcement do not relate to “evidence” in the case because they were not part of his trial testimony. (Mem. in Opp’n p. 30.) However, as the Government concedes, Lewis elicited the inconsistency in Jackson’s statements on cross-examination. Clearly, such statements can be considered for the purpose of determining credibility. The Government argues that this court should look, not at Jackson’s inconsistent statements, but at the consistency between the substance of Jackson’s statements and that of two Government witnesses: Carmella Smith (“Smith”) and Charise Frazier (“Frazier”). (Id. at p. 31.) Both witnesses testified that they knew Lewis from the neighborhood. (Tr. 699, 700, 754.) On October 6, 2008, three years after the fire, both witnesses gave investigators a statement regarding a get-together with Lewis a week after the fire. Smith testified that during this get-together, she and her cousin Frazier purchased marijuana from Lewis and smoked the marijuana with Lewis in Lewis’s van. (Tr. 706-08.) Smith testified that while in the van, they discussed.the arson. (Tr. 712.) Smith testified that Lewis stated he was “fucked up about the fire” (Tr. 716), that “the girl was already dead on the side of the bed” and that “the news was lying about the girl being burned.” (Tr. 717.) Smith further testified that Lewis said a girl was burned from the waist up, not the waist down; the car was moved and put back, and they wouldn’t find the keys because the keys were not in the car or the house. (Tr. 718.) Smith testified that when she asked Lewis how he knew these details, he gave her a “strange look” like she was the “police.” (Tr. 718-19.) On cross-examination, however, Smith admitted that it seemed like Lewis was relaying information as if *729 he had gotten it from someone else, and further admitted that there were rumors circulating in the neighborhood concerning the fire. (Tr. 730.) 14 Frazier’s testimony was consistent with that of her cousin Smith’s testimony. Frazier testified that Lewis never stated he started the fire. (Tr. 774.)
The Government’s argument regarding the alleged consistency of Lewis’s statements to Jackson with Lewis’s statements to other witnesses (which the court does not see), misses the point. The issue here is Jackson’s credibility, not the substance of Lewis’s statements. Regardless of what Lewis allegedly told others about the fire, the fact remains that Jackson admitted to having provided law enforcement with contradictory accounts concerning the extent of his interactions with Lewis in the county jail. While this may have been a “miscalculation” as Jackson testified, the recurring nature of Jackson’s “miscalculations” raises serious issues concerning his testimony.
ii. Jackson’s vomiting on the RTA bus
Lewis contends that the lack of any evidence corroborating Jackson’s claim that he vomited on the RTA bus after fleeing the scene, further calls into question whether Jackson was even at the scene of the crime and on the east side of Cleveland. (Mem., pp. 30-31.) As stated above, Jackson, on cross-examination, stated that he vomited on the return bus, but that the bus driver did not stop the bus after he did so. (Tr. 2398.) To impeach this testimony, defense counsel called witness Ricky Chapman (“Chapman”), who, at the time of his testimony, served as manager of service quality for the RTA. (Tr. 2652.) Chapman testified that under RTA procedure, a RTA bus driver is required to make a “service call” to the RTA headquarters when a customer becomes ill on the bus because RTA prohibits “bodily fluid around on the coach.” (Tr. 2658.) Chapman stated that the RTA headquarters documents service calls, that he reviewed all service calls for the night of the fire, and that there was no record of a service call made by a bus driver on the line Jackson allegedly took that night. (Tr. 2656-57.) Further, no report was issued in the early morning hours of May 21st, 2005. (Tr. 2665.) On cross-examination, Chapman stated that he could not definitively say that every bus driver makes a service call when someone gets sick. (Tr. 2660.) He further stated that the bus Jackson allegedly took that night was on its last run and headed back to the garage for the night to be cleaned. (Tr. 2660-61.) When asked whether this fact would render the issuance of a report or service call moot, Chapman answered that “[i]t still might happen because a person throwing up on a bus is a little different, because you need to call ahead and let them know it needs an interior wash. Every time you clean every night, it’s not an interior wash. We clean them at night, it’s just basically they’re being swept out or blown out and all the papers are cleaned up.” (Tr. 2661.) Further, he testified that it is possible that a driver may get into trouble for not reporting such an incident. (Tr. 2662.) From this evidence, Lewis argues that a “rational view of the facts can only lead one to conclude Marion Jackson *730 did not vomit on the bus and was never on that bus or on the east side that night.” (Mem., p. 31.)
The Government contends that Chapman’s testimony does not refute Jackson’s testimony that he vomited that night on the RTA bus. This is true in light of the fact that Chapman did not rule out the possibility that a driver might neglect to report the incident if it occurred during the last run, and thus the court does not find that this issue is particularly damaging to Jackson’s credibility. However, in the absence of an incident report, the court must rely on Jackson’s word only.
iii. The alleged party and Jackson’s location as a look-out
Lewis challenges two aspects of Jackson’s testimony that call into question whether Jackson was even at the scene of the crime. First, Lewis argues that Jackson’s testimony about the 87th Street party attended by at least 20 people was uncorroborated and contradicted by the testimony of Bruce Thomas (“Thomas”), a resident of Superior and 86th Street who was an eyewitness to the fire and who testified as part of Lewis’s case-in-chief. (Tr. 2583-84; Mem., pp. 31-32.) Second, Lewis challenges Jackson’s account of where he stood as a lookout in light of Thomas’s testimony that he was standing in the same spot at around the time of the fire. (Id. at 32-33.)
Thomas testified that just prior to the fire, he was with friends at a bar located on 79th and St. Clair. (Tr. 2586.) Thomas had a couple of cocktails but denied that he was intoxicated. (Tr. 2587.) He and his friends left the bar right after “last call,” or around 2:15 a.m. (Tr. 2587.) They then walked over to 87th Street and Superior, which he described as their “usual hangout” — his friend’s grandmother resides “across the street from where the incident [the fire] happened at.” (Tr. 2587.) Thomas stated that they arrived at his friend’s grandmother’s house at about 2:25 a.m., where they stood outside. (Tr. 2588.) According to Thomas, he and his friends noticed the fire about five to ten minutes later. (Tr. 2588.) He testified that they were “across the street, like diagonal from the house. The house was like two spots over and we was like in the field. We wasn’t in the field, we was in the middle of the street, like diagonal from the house, like it was two houses over though.” (Tr. 2588-2589.)
Thomas stated that he did not see any party on 87th Street that night or anyone else on the street' aside from his friends, other than a woman who was “dropped off to her truck and she got in it and left.” (Tr. 2591-92, 2632.) He testified that when he and his friends noticed the fire at the 1220 House, they were the first responders, and they immediately went up to the 1220 House and started to break the windows in order to the get to the kids. (Tr. 2594-2595.) He testified to having seen Teon Smith coming out of the house, as well as a woman whose “skin was boiling off.” (Tr. 2596.) Thomas provided a statement to law enforcement on June 4th, 2005, a few days after the fire. (Tr. 2599.) On cross-examination, Thomas was adamant that he was in the middle of 87th Street (Tr. 2616) and denied that he told a fire investigator that he and his friends were standing, not on the street, but in a vacant lot at the time of the fire. (Tr. 2638.) Further, Thomas stated that he and his friends would have observed whether a person came down 87th Street or walked in or out of the front of the 1220 House. (Tr. 2618-19.) Specifically, he stated: “ain’t nobody just going to walk up in the house and walk back out and we ain’t seeing them walk past. It’s impossible.” (Tr. 2618-2619.)
The Government contends that Thomas’s testimony is not credible. The Government attacks Thomas’s recollection not *731 ing that he could not remember which victim of the fire came out of the house first (Tr. 2653), and that he admitted he had been drinking that night. (Tr. 2586-87.) The Government further asserts that Lewis did not call any of the individuals who were with Thomas on 87th Street during the night of the fire as witnesses, in order to corroborate Thomas’s testimony. Further, it argues that Thomas offered contradictory answers regarding his position on 87th Street that night. As stated above, Thomas initially testified that he and his friends were “out by the field” on 87th Street talking when they saw the fire. (Tr. 2588.) When asked directly where he and his friends were located on 87th Street, Thomas testified that they were standing outside on 87th Street, diagonally from the 1220 House, when he saw the house on fire. (Tr. 2588-89.)
While the Government attacks Thomas’s recollection of that night, the Government has not presented convincing evidence to indicate Thomas is a less credible witness than Jackson, the alleged accomplice to the arson. If anything, the fact that Thomas is familiar with the neighborhood, was one of the first responders to the fire, and provided a statement to law enforcement just a few days after the fire, lends credibility to his testimony. Further, the Government did not present as a witness any of the alleged twenty party attendants to corroborate Jackson’s testimony. While it is entirely possible that Lewis and Jackson might have evaded Thomas's sight, it is improbable that Thomas would not have seen a party of 20 people react to the fire. Thomas’s testimony is an additional factor that raises significant questions concerning Jackson’s account of the events preceding the fire.
iv. Jackson’s testimony that people in the house owed Lewis money
Lewis argues that the facts do not support Jackson’s claim that Lewis set fire to the 1220 House because “somebody owed him some money” for- drugs “or something.” (Tr. 2267, 2272.) To render Jackson’s statement true, Lewis contends that one would have to believe that one of the occupants of the 1220 House owed Lewis money for drugs. (Mem., p. 35.) Lewis asserts that testimony by close family members and friends of the victims refute Jackson’s statement regarding Lewis’s motive. (See Evelyn Martin’s Testimony, Tr. 202-03, (testifying that her daughter, Medeia Carter, was not a drug user and would not have allowed drugs in and around her house); Capritta Nicole Bell’s Testimony, Tr. 498 (testifying that neither she nor Medeia Carter were drug users or engaged in drug-related activity); Teon Smith’s Testimony, Tr. 2556, 2582 (testifying that he had known Medeia Carter since he was 12 or 13 years old and did not know her to be a drug user, and that he was not' aware of any conflicts between Lewis and any member of the 1220 House).) Lewis notes that the only Government witnesses discussing a drug debt were Jackson, the jailhouse informants, and Sam Collins. All of these witnesses were connected to each other in some way, though the extent of the connections was in dispute throughout trial.
The Government contends that Jackson’s statement about the debt money was not contradicted by “physical facts or unimpeached and corroborated defense witness testimony.” (Mem. in Opp’n, p. 35.) Further, the Government notes that it did not have to prove motive. (Id. p. 34.)
Lewis’s argument concerning Jackson’s testimony that Lewis committed the arson because of a drug debt, is part of a larger recurring critique made by Lewis against several Government witnesses alleging Lewis had this particular motive. Jackson’s testimony regarding a drug debt is both corroborated and contradicted by a *732 number of Government witnesses. Those witnesses contradicting Jackson’s testimony were family members and friends of the victims of the fire, all of whom were adamant that no one in the house used drugs or had any conflict with Lewis. Conversely, the witnesses supporting Jackson’s testimony were jailhouse informants and prostitute Sam Collins, who claimed Lewis stated he burned the house for a drug debt. It is undisputed that these witnesses had no connection to the 1220 House and did not know any of the residents. While there is testimony to support Jackson’s account regarding a drug-debt motive, this testimony was thoroughly contradicted by the testimonies of the victims’ family members and their friends, witnesses who were not impeached,
v. The lack of cell phone records connecting Lewis to Jackson
Lewis contends that his phone records further undermine Jackson’s credibility because the records do not corroborate Jackson’s testimony. (Mem., p. 37.) Jackson testified that Lewis called him on May 20, 2005, the day of the fire, (Tr. 2274-75); he also confirmed that he told Agent Gregg, in a prior conversation, that Lewis called his cell phone on May 21, 2005, the morning after the fire, around 11:30 a.m. (Tr. 2346.) Lewis argues that these statements are not aligned with Lewis’s phone records or the testimony of cell phone expert Douglas Smith. During his cross-examination, Smith was asked to examine Lewis’s phone records for May 2005; Smith testified that he did not see any record of Lewis calling Jackson during that month. (Tr. 1336.) Further, none of the records produced at trial placed Lewis on the west side of Cleveland. Lewis asserts that the inconsistency between Lewis’s phone records and Jackson’s testimony presents extraordinary circumstances requiring a new trial. (Mem., p. 38.) Lewis raises a related issue regarding Jackson’s credibility, namely Jackson’s testimony about the number of cell phones that Lewis had in his possession. (Id. p. 37.) Jackson testified that Lewis owned two cell phones at the time of the fire (Tr. 2274), though he did not previously tell law enforcement this fact. Further, he could not remember Lewis’s cell phone numbers or even his own cell phone number during that time. (Tr. 2306.) Lewis contends that Jackson’s “selective memory is baffling to a reasonable person,” and should be taken into consideration for'the court’s analysis. (Mem., p. 38.)
The Government responds that Jackson’s inability to remember Lewis’s cell phone number is consistent with his inability to remember his own number. (Mem. in Opp’n, p. 35.) It further argues that Jackson’s testimony about Lewis owning two cell phones at the time of the fire is consistent with other witness testimony that Lewis possessed multiple cell phones at that time. (Id. p. 36 (citing to Sharese Williams’s testimony, Tr. 1068 (testifying that Lewis carried “one or two” cell phones at the time of the fire); Joan Davis’s testimony, Tr. 2692 (testifying that she also knew of Lewis to carry two cell phones with him at the time of the fire.)).) Finally, the Government contends that Lewis’s ownership of two cell phones possibly explains why Jackson’s phone number did not show up on the record for Lewis’s recovered cell phone. (Id.) The Government asserts that these phone records show that Lewis may have used the cell phone recovered by law enforcement for his family and friends, not for “drug buyers or suppliers.” (Id.)
"While the court agrees with the Government that Jackson’s trial statement that Lewis carried one or two cell phones was corroborated by other witnesses, the court also notes that the lack of cell phone records connecting Lewis to Jackson makes the issue of Jackson’s credibility even *733 more salient. The only evidence produced at trial establishing some sort of relationship between Jackson and Lewis was Jackson’s own testimony, and he presented a very ambiguous picture of his connection to Lewis. Indeed, Jackson admitted that when he went to visit Lewis in the county jail on December 27, 2005 wearing a wire in an attempt to record incriminating statements from Lewis, Jackson asked Lewis, “do you have any idea who did it and why they did it,” and “were you there when it happened?” (Tr. 2411.) Jackson admitted asking such questions despite having come forward as the alleged accomplice in the case and testifying that Lewis trusted him more than he did the average guys on the street. (Tr. 2410.) The court finds these admissions raise questions about whether Jackson had a relationship of trust with Lewis as he claimed on the stand. Later on in its Opinion, the court also addresses the significance of Lewis’s cell phone records and his hypothetical second phone to the Government’s case-in-chief.
vi. Jackson’s testimony about the location of the gas station
Lewis argues that Jackson’s inconsistent statements about the gas station he and Lewis visited prior to the fire further illustrate that the jury’s verdict was a “miscarriage of justice.” (Mem., p. 41.) At trial, Jackson testified that, on the night of May 20, 2005, Lewis and he went to “Citgo,” a gas station on Superior Avenue, to fill two gas cans allegedly used to start the house fire. (Tr. 2282.) On cross-examination, Jackson agreed that he had made a prior statement to Special Agent Gregg in 2005, and the grand jury in 2008, that the gas station was on the corner of 79th Street and St. Clair Ave. (Tr. 2389.) Lewis asserts that at the time of the fire, a gas station did not exist on this corner, and that Jackson, realizing this fact, changed his prior statements from 2005 and 2008 at trial to reflect this reality. (Mem., p. 40.) Lewis argues that Jackson’s change in the location of the gas station is not a mere “miscalculation” because, in his prior statements, Jackson gave specific directions of what streets they traveled to get to the alleged 79th Street and St. Clair Ave. gas station. (Id. citing Ex. 37B, p. 11 (describing directions to the gas station as “we walked west on Superior to East 79th where we walked north to St. Clair to a gas station at the [northeast] corner of E 79th and St. Clair.”).)
The very specific directions Jackson previously gave to law enforcement do call into question whether Jackson’s previous statement was a mere “miscalculation” as he stated at trial. (Tr. 2389-90, 2457.) Jackson’s testimony recounted a much simpler path: Jackson and Lewis allegedly stayed on Superior Avenue as they picked up cans, proceeded to the gas station where Lewis filled the cans with gasoline, and then walked back to the 1220 House, staying on Superior Avenue. (Mem., p. 40.) By contrast, Jackson’s prior statement detailed a much more circular route from the 1220 House, to the gas station, and back to the 1220 House. (Id.) These inconsistent statements, at the very least, raise additional concerns about Jackson’s recollection of that night, and moreover, his credibility in general. As noted above, his numerous “miscalculations” concerned critical aspects of the Government’s casein-chief.
In its Opposition, the Government contends that, despite this inconsistency in Jackson’s statements concerning the location of the gas station, Jackson’s statement that Lewis purchased $5 worth of gas the night before the fire, was consistent with Lewis’s own statement to Agent Illig that on May 20, 2005, he paid $5 for gas. (See Tr. 949.) This consistency does lend some credibility to Jackson’s testimony, and the record reflects that Jackson was not im *734 peached on this particular point, but the “miscalculation” concerning the location of the gas station does impact the credibility assessment. 15
vii. Jackson’s alterations of his original time line
Of the several aspects of Jackson’s testimony challenged by Lewis, the one that raises the most concern is Jackson’s testimony regarding the timing of the events occurring on May 20-21, 2005. Lewis points to a September 30, 2005 statement Jackson gave to ATF officers regarding the events that took place that night (“2005 timeline”) as a reference point for challenging Jackson’s credibility. (Tr. 2244.)
At all times prior to trial, Jackson maintained that the series of events began sometime around 7:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., when he received the call from Lewis instructing him to meet him on the east side of Cleveland, and ended around 3:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., when he finally got home after taking a bus back to the west side. (Tr. 2449-52.) At trial, Jackson initially testified that he was with Lewis the night of May 20 starting around 9:30 p.m., but that he could have “been wrong about my time because it was dark outside and I didn’t have my watch.” (Tr. 2274.) Regardless of the timing, he maintained that he was with Lewis continuously until the fire. (Tr. 2384.)
On cross-examination, however, Jackson was confronted with Lewis’s cell phone records, which indicated that Lewis received two cell phone calls at 1:38 a.m., and 1:39 a.m. placing him in the area of East 106th street and Union Avenue, four miles away from the fire. (Tr. 2385-86.) In his case-in-ehief, Lewis also presented the testimony of Janine Chisholm, a former girlfriend of his, who testified that she was with Lewis around 11:00 p.m. or midnight, the night of the fire. (Tr. 2767.) Chisholm stated that she and Lewis were in her car and that she took Lewis to the area of 102nd and Union Avenue, at a family member’s home. (Tr. 2767.) Chisholm denied seeing Lewis with a middle-aged man fitting Jackson’s description. (Tr. 2767-68.) The Government notes that although Chisholm testified that she was with Lewis that night, on cross-examination, she admitted that, in 2005, she did not tell police officers that she was with Lewis the night of the fire. (Tr. 2786-87.) However, Lewis’s cell phone records corroborate her testimony that Lewis was in the Union Avenue area some time before the fire.
When confronted with the records and asked whether he was with Lewis near Union Avenue, Jackson replied that he and Lewis were not near that avenue and further stated: “I don’t even know where Union Avenue is.” (Tr. 2384, 2385.) Further, the records show that Lewis made numerous phone calls from 9:15 p.m. to 1:40 a.m. — when Jackson claimed to have been with Lewis — but Jackson did not recall any phone calls aside from the one shortly before the fire in which Lewis asked the caller whether the “bitch Nicole” was in the 1220 House. (Tr. 2386-87.) 16
Faced with Lewis’s phone records, on redirect, Jackson dramatically altered his *735 previous accounts of the events preceding the fire. Specifically, he denied that he was with Lewis for hours. (Tr. 2439.) He testified that he and Lewis walked continuously, with no stopping. (Tr. 2437.) He estimated that the entire walk took him “about 15, 20 minutes.” (Tr. 2439.) When asked whether “the walk you took was the extent of time you were with the defendant on the 20th or 21st of May 2005,” Jackson responded in the affirmative. (Tr. 2439.) On re-cross, Jackson stated that “I’m not good at times ... I’m not even good with numbers even.” (Tr. 2448.) On recross-examination Jackson agreed that he related his original time line of the events to the ATF officers. (Tr. 2449.) Lewis argues this September 2005 time line contradicts Jackson’s shortened time line he testified to during his redirect examination.
In its Opposition to Lewis’s Motion, the Government acknowledges that Jackson’s sequence of events the night of the fire was “off.” (Mem. in Opp’n p. 37.) Further, the Government notes that Jackson’s inaccuracies were “fully disclosed to the jury and understandable. Jackson was not the only witness with time problems.” (Id.)
While it would be not be surprising that there might be some slight variation between the previous time line Jackson reported to the law enforcement and the time line presented at trial, Jackson changed his initial five-hour time line by several hours — -a significant decrease. To say that his chronology was “off’ is putting it lightly. This decrease is troubling given that the initial time line was given to law enforcement much closer to the events of the case; when Jackson testified at trial, almost five years had transpired since the fire.
viii. Jackson’s motivation to lie and/or implicate himself in the arson
Finally, the court will address the issue of Jackson’s incentive to cooperate with law enforcement and to implicate himself and Lewis in the arson. As an initial matter, the court notes that the Government has the discretion to give resources and immunity to a cooperating witness, and that the use of such resources does not alone render the witness’s testimony incredible or constitutionally inadmissible. See, e.g., United States v. Levenite, 277 F.3d 454, 461-62 (4th Cir.2002) (“[A]s long as there are adequate safeguards, the potential corruption should not condemn the practice.”). Nevertheless, the receipt of such benefits (or the possibility of receiving assistance in a criminal case) is relevant to the issue of credibility. See United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d 310, 315 (5th Cir.1987) (noting it is “difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the inducement of a reduced sentence” but that “it is up to the jury to evaluate the credibility of the compensated witness”).
While there is no evidence to suggest that Jackson knew or reasonably believed he would receive such benefits prior to speaking with ATF, the court notes that Jackson was connected to the ATF through Paul McKeever, a prisoner and ATF informant, who has received benefits for his cooperation with the Government in past investigations. Further, while there is no direct evidence that the Government was involved in the dismissal of Jackson’s multiple state felony charges, and his eventual conviction for a lesser-included misdemeanor, the record shows that government agents were nevertheless present at some of Jackson’s key hearings. The benefits received by Jackson as a result of his cooperation, coupled with the timing of his coming forward to law enforcement is yet another factor warranting heightened scrutiny of Jackson’s testimony.
The Government asserts that Jackson volunteered information about his role as a *736 lookout for Lewis to law enforcement, that he had no incentive to implicate himself in the arson, and that implicating himself was against his interest. As stated above, Jackson testified that he did receive some benefits from the Government for his aid in the investigation. These benefits included immunity for his testimony at trial, and money for living expenses and housing. The Government argues that it was not involved with the dismissal of Jackson’s criminal charges for want of prosecution and offered testimony by the state prosecutor involved in Jackson’s state case, who denied the federal government’s involvement in that case. (Tr. 2465-68.) The Government does not deny that it provided Jackson with money for living and housing, and immunity for his testimony. It contends, however, that it provided Jackson money because he feared for his safety because he was assisting the Government. (Tr. 2392, 2426). It further argues that the Government would be paying for Jackson’s housing anyway because “Jackson was likely to live in government housing of some sort.” As for Jackson’s immunity, the Government notes that Jackson did not obtain use immunity until 2008, three years after he spoke with investigators regarding the fire, and thus, was not shielded from liability when he initially confessed to investigators in 2005. The Government asserts that the fact that Jackson did not have immunity during his 2005 confession illustrates that Jackson did not have a reason to fabricate Lewis’s and his involvement in the fire. (Mem. in Opp’n. p. 30.)
c. Conclusion Regarding Jackson’s Testimony
Having reviewed Jackson’s testimony and Lewis’s arguments concerning Jackson’s testimony, the court finds that several factors undermine Jackson’s credibility. Given his memory lapses, his “miscalculations,” and his problems with dates, times, and numbers, Jackson presented an incomplete and nebulous picture of his relationship with Lewis 17 , describing two isolated encounters with Lewis that apparently led to a relationship of trust and confidence, and Jackson’s eventual alleged involvement in the arson. The absence of corroboration or additional details is significant— none of the records produced at trial placed Lewis on the west side of Cleveland. Moreover, the evidence produced was such as to cause one to question, from a common-sense standpoint, why a young man involved in drug dealing on the east side of Cleveland would want to recruit a man in his 50’s, from a different part of the city, with multiple health complications and disorders, and no automobile, as an accomplice for various criminal activities.
Furthermore, Jackson’s testimony concerning his participation in the arson was also incomplete. Indeed, Jackson materially altered the time line he had previously provided law enforcement when he first *737 came forward in September of 2005. At that time, Jackson maintained that he was with Lewis continuously from about 9:30 p.m. on May 20th, 2005, until the fire began early in the morning on May 21st, 2005. After Jackson was confronted with Lewis’s cell phone records, the entire series of events was truncated to a period of 15 to 20 minutes, in which Jackson claimed that he and Lewis shared a beer somewhere near Superior Avenue and E. 87th Street; walked over to the 1220 House; walked back to Superior Avenue, where Lewis retrieved two gas cans near E. 83rd; walked to and from a gas station blocks away on E. 76th Street and Superi- or to purchase gas; and walked back up Superior, and turned on 86th and up to the 1220 House, at which point the crime was committed. Not only was the time line drastically truncated, other key details of his account were called into question. Although prior to trial, Jackson had maintained the gas station was on 79th and St. Clair, his trial testimony was that the gas station was located on E. 76th and Superior Avenue, which means that Lewis and Jackson remained on the same avenue throughout, rather than circling the neighborhood by walking from Superior Avenue to St. Clair. This inconsistency was reflective of a larger pattern of “miscalculations,” which also included previous inconsistent statements to law enforcement, including statements concerning his interactions (or lack thereof) with Lewis in the county jail.
Further, although Jackson maintained that a party and cook-out of about .20 people was going on in a lot in close proximity to the fire, this was not corroborated. Thomas, who testified that he was in close proximity to the 1220 House shortly before the fire began, testified that he did not see a party in that lot, and moreover, did not see anyone walking up the 1220 House or standing outside as a lookout. The Government’s argument concerning Thomas’s credibility are not convincing — Thomas was familiar with the neighborhood, was a first responder to the fire, and provided a statement to law enforcement shortly after the fire. The Government notes that the Defense failed to call Thomas’s friends who were with him that night to support his testimony; but the Government did not produce any witnesses who were on the block shortly before the fire, and might have seen Lewis and Jackson walking to and from the 1220 House, or the alleged outdoor party.
Lastly, although the Government emphasized that no benefits were promised to Jackson in exchange for his cooperation, the court is mindful of the fact that his cooperation came at a time when he was facing serious criminal charges, and when he was incarcerated with a friend who happened to be a repeat informant who previously received benefits for his cooperation with law enforcement. The timing is very suspect. The court discusses the testimony of the jailhouse informants next in this Opinion, but notes now that it is concerned that much of the corroboration of Jackson’s testimony came by way of suspect jailhouse informant testimony.
When viewing the totality of Jackson’s testimony, and the various inconsistencies contained therein, the court finds that Jackson’s credibility was significantly undermined. However, the court will address the testimony of other key witnesses, and the remaining evidence in order to base its decision on the record as a whole. See United States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir.1999) (“The focus in a motion for a new trial is not on whether the testimony is so incredible that it should have been excluded. Rather, the court considers whether the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, taking into account the credibility of the witnesses-.”)
*738
2. The Jailhouse Informants
To corroborate Jackson’s account of the arson, the Government introduced the testimony of various jailhouse informants. As an initial matter, the court notes that jailhouse informants present special credibility problems; courts, scholars and some state legislatures have recognized that they are often unreliable witnesses who stand to benefit from providing testimony, and often present testimony that can readily be fabricated. See, e.g., State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 , 973 A.2d 1254,1259 (2009) (holding that “[i]n light of [the] growing recognition of the inherent unreliability of jailhouse informant testimony ... the trial court should give a special credibility instruction to the jury whenever such testimony is given, regardless of whether the informant has received an express promise of a benefit” (emphasis added)); Zappulla v. New York, 391 F.3d 462 , 470 n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) (noting “numerous scholars and criminal justice experts have found the testimony by ‘jail house snitches’ to be highly unreliable”); Dodd v. State, 993 P.2d 778, 784 (Okla.Crim.App. 2000) (adopting special procedures in relation to use of jailhouse informant testimony, including discovery and special jury instruction); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir.1993) (“Criminal informants are cut from untrustworthy cloth and must be managed and carefully watched by the government and the courts to prevent them from falsely accusing the innocent, from manufacturing evidence against those under suspicion of crime, and from lying under oath in the courtroom.”); Peter A. Joy, “Brady and Jailhouse Informants: Responding to Injustice,” 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 619 , 625 (2007) (noting false snitch testimony is a “major contributing cause[] to wrongful convictions”); see also 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/115 — 21(c)—(d) (2003) (Illinois statute requiring, in capital cases, special procedures for use of in-custody informant testimony, including discovery and pretrial hearing regarding witness reliability). Although the court in this case did not instruct the jury regarding these special credibility problems, the court notes that the testimony of the jailhouse informants and the defense’s cross-examinations nevertheless presented salient credibility questions for the jury.
As the court previously noted, the jailhouse informants in this case were all connected in some way to repeat jailhouse informant, Paul McKeever. Therefore, the court begins its assessment of the credibility of the jailhouse informants with Paul McKeever.
a. Paul McKeever (“McKeever”)
McKeever is a recidivist offender who at the time of trial was serving a sentence for gross sexual imposition and two convictions arising out of his failure to register his sex offender status and to report to a parole officer. (Tr. 1406.) He has a long history of convictions dating back to 1992, which include multiple theft-related and sex-related offenses. (Tr. 1407-1412.) According to McKeever, “I’ve always done everything wrong in my life and cooperating with law enforcement kind of helps me give back to the society that, you know, I couldn’t give when I’m out there.” (Tr. 1414.) He was not provided a wire in this case, but had previously worn a wire in his capacity as an informant. (Tr. 1550.) On cross, McKeever admitted to having some “mental” issues (Tr. 1592), and further, to being placed on suicide watch on September 26, 2006. (Tr. 1598.)
McKeever testified that he met Lewis in May of 2005, and saw him again in May and June of 2006. (Tr. 1413.) McKeever testified that his first encounter with Lewis was in the medical unit of the Cuyahoga County Jail, where they were both locked up in isolation. (Tr. 1417.) Lewis had been locked up in that unit after having *739 beaten up a fellow inmate. (Tr. 1417.) McKeever recalled that while they were isolated in this unit, another inmate recognized Lewis from the streets and asked Lewis about the fire for which he was under investigation; Lewis responded that “they didn’t have nothing on him and not to worry about it.” (Tr. 1418-19.) He stated that, at the time, he did not know what the conversation was about, but he paid more attention after Lewis added that “the bitch deserved what she got and that they didn’t have nothing on him.” (Tr. 1420.) McKeever then contacted a law enforcement official with whom he had previously cooperated with in investigations — “[t]o try to give something back, you know.” (Tr. 1420-1421.) He admitted to previously receiving a benefit — probation — for providing information in a murder case. (Tr. 1421-1422.) He met with Detective Ray McCarthy from the arson unit of the Cleveland Fire Department in June of 2005 and told him about Lewis’s statements. (Tr. 1423-24.) He testified that he did not have an opportunity to interact with Lewis thereafter, but in September 2005, while he was imprisoned in the Cuyahoga County Jail, he encountered Marion Jackson. (Tr. 1424-25.) McKeever testified that he has known Jackson “[tjhroughout my prison sentences” and admitted to being friends with Jackson. (Tr. 1425.)
He testified that while they were both locked up in the medical unit, the “East 87th Street fire came on the news and Pops [Marion Jackson] ... started watching it real, real closely when it came on.” (Tr. 1426.) He added that he looked “worried” and “was acting funny, so he went towards the window. I went over and talked to him a little bit and our conversations led to him saying that he knew who set that fire and he said that he knew the guy who actually did it.” (Tr. 1426.) Jackson told him that it was Lewis who committed the arson, and McKeever testified that he relayed the information to Detective McCarthy. (Tr. 1426.) McKeever testified that he asked Jackson how he knew this information, and that Jackson indicated that “he knew the same girl that [Lewis] knew, a girl by the name of Sam.” (Tr. 1428.) McCarthy instructed McKeever to talk more with Jackson, and McKeever encouraged Jackson to speak with Detective McCarthy, which he agreed to do. (Tr. 1430-31.)
Sometime thereafter, McKeever was transferred to Grafton Correctional Institution (“Grafton”); he learned from Special Agent Gregg that Lewis would be transferred to Grafton to give McKeever an opportunity to elicit information from Lewis. (Tr. 1433-1434.) McKeever claimed that Lewis recognized him and asked him how he was doing; they started talking about women, and McKeever shared pictures with Lewis and they discussed possibly setting up a prostitution ring. (Tr. 1440-41.) McKeever raised the subject of the fire, asking about the progress of the investigation; Lewis again responded “they really didn’t have nothing on him” and that he wasn’t too worried about it. (Tr. 1442.) McKeever told Lewis that he knew one of the girls whom Lewis knew — Sam—and that Lewis then showed him a picture of Sam. (Tr. 1442.) On the stand, McKeever denied knowing Sam, and testified that he knew of Sam through Jackson, and was just using the name “Sam” to get information from Lewis. (Tr. 1442-43.) Lewis told McKeever that “Sam’s always been a problem to him ... but that he wasn’t really worried about her, he was only worried about one person,” namely Jackson. (Tr. 1444.) McKeever testified that he knew then that there was “more to what Pops’ involvement was in this fire.” (Tr. 1444.)
McKeever testified that he then contacted Agent Gregg and told him that he *740 should look at Jackson more carefully. (Tr. 1445.) McKeever testified that Lewis added that Pops “was the — the MF’er that was staying across the street.” (Tr. 1446.) The conversation made Lewis irritable and so McKeever changed the subject. (Tr. 1447.) McKeever testified that he apologized to Lewis the next day in the day-room, and that Lewis “mentioned a girl named Nicole.” (Tr. 1450.)
McKeever testified that on May 27th, 2006, Lewis came to his cell to talk with McKeever, and to ask if he was serious about getting out and making money together. (Tr. 1458.) McKeever showed Lewis a fake bank statement that he got from the ATF showing that he had $1.9 million in a bank account. (Tr. 1459.) He testified that after he showed Lewis the statement, “his whole demeanor changed” and that he confided in him, telling him that: “he did set the fire, that he had it all planned out. He said that he actually wanted Pops to go in the house and set the fire for him.... Pops went to the gas station, got the gas with him, but Pops ended up backing out at the last minute and wouldn’t do it.” (Tr. 1459-60.) Lewis told him that “the bitch [Jackson] got scared, so he ended up going in there and setting the fire. When he came back out, Pops was gone. He was worried about that.” (Tr. 1460.) McKeever testified that he asked Lewis about the children that died in the fire, but Lewis responded that “he did not know that those kids were there ... he didn’t mean to kill them people, that he just wanted to send that bitch a message is what he said.” (Tr. 1460.) Lewis told him that he went into the house through the left door of the house carrying gas cans, (Tr. 1472), and that “[w]hen he [Lewis] come running out, he had gas cans.” (Tr. 1466.) McKeever testified that Lewis eventually revealed that Pops was actually Marion Jackson, and that this shocked McKeever a little bit, “but [he] knew who he was talking about any ways.” (Tr. 1462.)
McKeever recalled another interaction with Lewis where Lewis was staring out a window and had a “little tear in his eye;” Lewis revealed that “it was a relative that was burned up in the fire and he took off his shirt and showed [McKeever] the cross and ... the girl’s name that was actually on the cross that had died [in] that fire.” (Tr. 1479.) Lewis admitted that he had been smoking “a lot of water [wet] 18 on the street....” (Tr. 1479.)
McKeever testified that Lewis was eventually moved “to the hole,” or into a segregation unit, because ATF Agents were concerned about how Lewis had begun acting towards McKeever. (Tr. 1482.) McKeever was also moved into the segregation unit for his own misconduct. (Tr. 1482.) Thus, Lewis and McKeever spent some time in the hole together. (Tr. 1488.) McKeever testified that this was sometime in July of 2006. (Tr. 1483.) He testified that Lewis was two cells down from him, and when Lewis saw McKeever being taken to his cell, Lewis “started yelling my name all night, two or three times he was yelling.... He kept making like little threats throughout the night.” (Tr. 1484.) Lewis threatened McKeever, telling him that “he could have someone burn [his] family like he did theirs.” (Tr. 1485.)
On cross, McKeever admitted to previously receiving benefits for his cooperation and testimony in several cases. (Tr. 1502, 1507-14.) Notably, McKeever testified for the prosecution in another arson case in which four people were killed, State v. Brown. (Tr. 1517.) In that case, he claimed that while he was in jail with Brown, Brown told him that he had set the *741 fire at issue, but didn’t mean to kill anyone. (Tr. 1517.) He admitted to saying in that case that the defendant set the fire to kill a particular “bitch.” (Tr. 1518.) In that case, he had two other jailhouse informants corroborate his testimony. (Tr. 1551.)
McKeever admitted to being in the same jail pod with Jackson for a total period of six weeks-August 11, 2005 to September 30, 2005. (Tr. 1520.) Jackson was “hysterical” at that point in time because of recent events in his life. (Tr. 1521.) He learned that at the time of his arrest, Jackson had just gotten his own place, and that it looked like he might lose it because of his incarceration. (Tr. 1528.) While he was in Cuyahoga County Jail, there were rumors going around concerning Lewis’s alleged involvement in the arson, and there was intense media coverage, with people watching news stories. (Tr. 1531.)
He admitted to discussing Sam with Jackson, but claimed that he did not know Sam. (Tr. 1544-45.) When confronted with conviction records showing that he had previously been indicted in a 1992 car theft alongside Sam Collins’s then-husband, he agreed that this is an incredible coincidence, but denied knowing Sam. (Tr. 1545-46.)
McKeever was released from incarceration on December 18th, 2008, but within months was rearrested. (Tr. 1601.) Specifically, he did not report to his parole office, did not report a change of address in light of his sex offender status, and was charged with kidnapping. (Tr. 1602-03.) He pled guilty to gross sexual imposition, failing to notify a change of address, and escape. (Tr. 1620.) He also pled guilty to an aggravated theft offense. (Tr. 1624.) He admitted that based on the severity of the offenses, he was looking at over eight years of incarceration. (Tr. 1625.) At sentencing, a state prosecutor spoke on his behalf, and he received a four-year sentence. (Tr. 1628.) He admitted that he could make a motion for judicial release in this latest case. (Tr. 1629.) His latest convictions brings his total count to over 20. (Tr. 1630.)
b. Daniel Id’Deen (“Id’Deen”)
Like McKeever, Id’Deen has a string of convictions dating back to the early 1990s, including, but not limited to, a 1993 conviction for forgery; a 1996 conviction for counterfeiting; 1997 convictions for forgery and receiving stolen property; a 1998 conviction for counterfeit securities; 2000 convictions for fraud; a 2001 conviction for forgery; and 2004 convictions for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, forgery, and identity fraud. (Tr. 1697-98.)
Id’Deen testified in corroboration of McKeever’s testimony that he elicited incriminating statements from Lewis. Specifically, Id’Deen testified to overhearing a conversation between McKeever and Lewis in which Lewis stated “that Sam was okay, but Pops can hurt me.” (Tr. 1716.) He also heard “Mr. Lewis say, T didn’t know the kids was there. It wasn’t meant for them. It [was] meant for the bitch Nicole.” (Tr. 1716.) Id’Deen admitted that these statements “got my attention the most because I just heard about that on the news ... especially when he said the name Nicole.” (Tr. 1720.) Id’Deen also recalled Lewis stating that “Pops was waiting, but he didn’t go in with him, so Pops stayed across the street... .When he came out, Pops was not there across the street.” (Tr. 1724.) Id’Deen gave his statement to law enforcement on July 18, 2006, regarding the conversations he maintains he overheard in May of 2006. (Tr. 1760.)
c. Richard Wheeland (‘Wheeland”)
Wheeland was called to corroborate certain portions of McKeever’s and Id’Deen’s testimony, specifically their testimony concerning the events of May 2006 and Lew *742 is’s alleged incriminating statements. (Tr. 1817.) At the time of trial, Wheeland was serving a sentence for vehicular homicide and assault. (Tr. 1806.) At the time of the incriminating statements in question, Wheeland had been McKeever’s cellmate for about a month. (Tr. 1821.) He testified to a particular incident in which he witnessed Id’Deen, McKeever, and Lewis at a table. (Tr. 1824.) They were looking at photographs while he was working on homework. (Tr. 1826.) He testified he was about six feet away from them. (Tr. 1827.) Wheeland’s interest was piqued when the conversation turned to the 1220 House fire. (Tr. 1829.) He testified to having overheard a second conversation about a week later. He said he witnessed McKeever and Lewis having a conversation in the dayroom “looking suspicious.” (Tr. 1835.) Specifically, Wheeland overheard Lewis saying that he was not worried about Sam, but was worried about Pops. (Tr. 1837.) Lewis, referring to the fire, stated “It was either that or shoot the bitch.” (Tr. 1839.) He testified having heard Lewis state that “they owed him or something ... I’m going to assume money.” (Tr. 1839.) When McKeever asked him about the kids, Lewis stated “it wasn’t intended for the kids, it was meant for Nicole.” (Tr. 1839.) Wheeland recalled a separate incident in which he was approached by Lewis and asked whether he had heard a rumor that McKeever had previously worn a wire. (Tr. 1853.)
On cross, he admitted to being “kind of an outcast” in prison given his studious nature and his involvement in educational programs. (Tr. 1864.) He testified that as a person with his background and upbringing “[y]ou can be exploited.” (Tr. 1865.) He admitted that it is important to know who your cellmate is because that person could be violent or could plant stuff in your cell. (Tr. 1866.) On cross, he admitted that he can file a motion for judicial release now that the mandatory portion of his sentence is over; he previously had applied in 2009, but had been denied. (Tr. 1888.)
d. Anthony Collier (“Collier”)
Like McKeever, Id’Deen, and Jackson, Collier has an extensive criminal record dating back several years. At the time of his testimony, he was serving a two-year sentence for three counts of robbery. (Tr. 1906.) His criminal record dates back to 1974, and includes multiple convictions for robbery and theft-related offenses. (Tr. 1906-08.) During June and July of 2006, he was serving time in Grafton Correctional Institution. (Tr. 1909.) On June 29th, 2006, he was placed in the segregation unit, where he said he spent a total of about 19 to 21 days. (Tr. 1911.) Collier testified that during the time he spent in segregation, he spent about ten days alone with no cellmate. (Tr. 1915.)
Collier testified that although inmates were essentially isolated when locked up in segregation units, they communicated with each other by yelling out of “air holes” in the cell doors. (Tr. 1914-15.) Collier described the segregation unit as consisting of two levels: a lower level, and an upper level; he was being held in the lower level. (Tr. 1918.) Further, he testified that Lewis was also in segregation during this time, and was being held a few cells down on the same level. (Tr. 1918.) He testified that he could hear Lewis communicating through the airholes with someone on the upper level. (Tr. 1918.) At first, he was not paying attention “but then I slowly started listening and then ... I heard the guy pretty much just incriminate himself I think pretty much out of fright.” (Tr. 1918.) Collier testified that he heard Lewis yelling through the airholes that he was being transferred and that he was sure that someone had snitched on him. (Tr. 1918.) Collier testified Lewis was also talking about the house fire that “about a *743 year before ... had been pretty big news ... it was one of the biggest losses of life that had transpired in the City of Cleveland in its history.” (Tr. 1919.)
Regarding the allegedly incriminating statements, Collier testified that he heard Lewis “talk about this girl named Nicole” and “heard him threaten a guy named Paul” who was detained on the other side of Collier’s cell on the same level. (Tr. 1919.) Regarding Nicole, Collier testified that Lewis yelled to his friend on the upper level that Nicole “got burned but she still looked good.” (Tr. 1920.) He also testified that Lewis’s friend on the upper level yelled out to Lewis to ask him why he did it, to which Lewis responded that “he was wetted out and that he was on that jealousy shit and that he fucked up.” (Tr. 1922.) Lewis yelled that McKeever had better keep his mouth shut or he would be burned up as well, or his family’s house would be burned. (Tr. 1923-24.) Collier testified that after spending ten days alone in the cell, McKeever was moved into his cell, but that McKeever denied being the “Paul” that Lewis had been yelling about and threatening. (Tr. 1925.)
Collier left segregation on July 19th, 2006. (Tr. 1927.) Thereafter, he met with ATF Agent Gregg and provided a statement on August 11, 2006. (Tr. 1927-28.) On direct, Collier admitted that after providing a statement, he came up for parole, and that Agent Gregg wrote a letter on his behalf concerning his cooperation on the Lewis case. (Tr. 1932-33.) The letter was dated July 30th, 2008, and was sent almost two years after he provided his statement. (Tr. 1933.) Collier testified that he ultimately got out on parole in February 2009; but that he got back in trouble in early 2010, and is now currently back in prison. (Tr. 1934.)
e. Cyle Watson (“Watson”)
Watson has a criminal record dating back to 2005; at the time of trial, he was serving a sentence for violating parole in connection with a prior conviction for rape. (Tr. 1974-77.) After serving three years, he was sent back to prison in 2009 for violating parole. (Tr. 1977.) Watson’s testimony was limited to the period of October 2006, when he was incarcerated in the same facility as Lewis. (Tr. 1979.) Watson, a white male, testified that at the time, he was part of the Crips, a mostly African-American gang. (Tr. 1983, 2008.) Watson testified that he initiated conversations with Lewis “to brag to him because he’s [Lewis] considered a high ranking Crip.” (Tr. 1983.) He testified that “I was bragging to him about things I had done, shot at people or whatever on the streets, and he’s like, you know, you think you shot at people, you think you might have killed people, I know I have ...” (Tr. 1984.) Specifically, Lewis confided: “you know, I killed a bitch. I — I asked what for? And he said she ripped him off with some dope and [Lewis] torched her house.... I know that she died and I know there was a bunch of kids, and I don’t give a fuck about the bitch, I care about the kids, I feel bad about the kids.” (Tr. 1986.) Further, Lewis told him that “the only person he had to worry about was a guy named Pops.” (Tr. 1987.) He testified that after this conversation, he had limited interaction with Lewis. (Tr. 1987.) He testified that some months down the road he saw his “real good friend” Chris Myers talking with Lewis. (Tr. 1988.) Watson provided a statement to ATF Agent Gregg on August 26, 2008. (Tr. 1990.) On cross, he admitted to being housed right next to McKeever in June and part of July of 2008, just prior to providing his statement. (Tr. 1998.) He testified that the interactions with Lewis he described on direct occurred between October and December *744 of 2006. (Tr. 2000.) However, he did not provide a statement to authorities until after he was later incarcerated with McKeever in Belmont. (Tr. 2000.) On redirect, Watson testified that not only did McKeever live next to him, but that Watson also cut his hair. (Tr. 2012.) On recross he testified that he didn’t come forward to authorities until much later, out of concern for the children that died because it “was a phase of my life I had to go through.” (Tr. 2015.) He testified that law enforcement got in touch with him because his friend Chris Myers “floated his name to law enforcement.” (Tr. 2017.)
f. Christopher Myers (“Myers”)
Myers is a recidivist offender who has numerous convictions for theft-related offenses. (Tr. 2024.) On July 19, 2006, he received a sentence of four years and three months for his latest conviction. (Tr. 2025.) He testified that sometime in the fall of 2006, he was transferred to Belmont Correctional Institution. (Tr. 2026.) There, he met Lewis in 2007, working out at the pull-up bars. (Tr. 2026.) Myers testified that during this encounter at the pull-up bars, he, Lewis, and another inmate started talking about “snitches,” and that Lewis started talking about a man who snitched on him named Pops. (Tr. 2031.) Lewis was “offering a couple stacks to ... shut old boy [Jackson] up.” (Tr. 2031-32.) Myers claimed that Lewis then told him about the fire, specifically that “some girl had owed him money and he was going to go take care of it one way or the other and I guess they was supposed to set the mother fucker on fire ... [and] Pops had bitched out on him.” (Tr. 2033.) Lewis apparently then stated that “when old boy bitched out that he went in the side door with some gas and did it himself.” (Tr. 2034.) Myers testified that when Lewis revealed that a couple of kids had died in the fire, “I didn’t want nothing to do with it. I was like, wow.” (Tr. 2035.) Myers testified that after Lewis revealed this to him, “I told him I was a thief and I got to go. I go, ‘I’m a thief, I’m not a killer.’ ” (Tr. 2035.) He avoided Lewis thereafter. (Tr. 2037.) Myers perceived Lewis to be a member of the Crips, based on Lewis’s handshakes, and that the Crips is a “multi-race” organization. (Tr. 2039.) He testified that both he and Watson were members of Crips’ branches. (Tr. 2040.)
A few months after his conversation with Lewis, he asked Watson for advice. (Tr. 2042.) He testified that Watson told him that he should speak to a Sergeant Howell. (Tr. 2043.) Myers eventually spoke with ATF Agent Gregg. (Tr. 2047.) Myers admitted to having a close relationship with Watson but denied having any friendship with McKeever, stating only that he “knew of him.” (Tr. 2041, 2049.) On cross, however, he acknowledged that he and McKeever were in the same prison pod at Belmont for a period of time between May and July of 2008, and that he spoke with Agent Gregg regarding Lewis during this time period. (Tr. 2057-58, 2062-63.) He provided a statement to Agent Gregg on July 1, 2008. (Tr. 2048.) Myers testified that he was motivated to speak to law enforcement because “it was laying heavy on my chest when I heard people talking about some kids getting burned up in a fire and I got a conscience and it was weighing heavy on it so I had to talk to somebody.... I got a heart.” (Tr. 2048.)
g. Analysis
Several aspects of the jailhouse informants’ testimony call their credibility into serious question. As an initial matter, the court cannot ignore the fact that each witness was somehow connected to Paul McKeever when he offered a statement to law enforcement. Paul McKeever either shared a cell or was in the same pod as the jailhouse informants, Daniel Id’Deen, Rich *745 ard Wheeland, Anthony Collier, Cyle Watson, and Christopher Myers. (See Id’Deen’s testimony, Tr. 1760; Wheeland’s testimony Tr. 1868, 1980; Collier’s testimony, Tr. 1942; Myers’s testimony, Tr. 2057-58; and Watson’s testimony, Tr. 1995.) Indeed, Watson, who testified regarding incriminating statements made by Lewis in the fall of 2006, only provided a statement to law enforcement in the Summer of 2008, after having been incarcerated in a cell adjacent to McKeever. McKeever, in turn, admitted to having a history of cooperating with law enforcement and providing statements, and receiving benefits in some cases. He admitted to previously cooperating in a different arson case in which he also claimed that the Defendant did not mean to kill some of t

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8697169. Public record. Not legal advice.