The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of two Georgia men on six drug-related federal charges, rejecting their appeals challenging the admission of key evidence at trial.
Kenneth Pertillo, also known as "Fat Boy," and Johnifer Dernard Barnwell, also known as "Whoop" or "Malixe," were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia following a federal investigation into a heroin-dealing ring operating in Macon.
The case originated in 2020 when law enforcement received a tip about heroin distribution activities in Macon. Federal agents conducted controlled drug purchases from De'Kerio Coleman before obtaining authorization to wiretap his communications. The investigation revealed that Coleman's supplier was his brother, Christopher Coleman.
Agents subsequently wiretapped Christopher Coleman's phone, which led them to identify his suppliers, including Barnwell. The wiretap evidence formed a crucial component of the prosecution's case against both defendants.
Pertillo challenged his convictions on two primary grounds. First, he argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of an earlier drug sale that prosecutors used to establish his involvement in the conspiracy. Second, he contested the admission of personal notebooks containing what he described as a story based on his life experiences.
The defense argued that these materials were prejudicial and should not have been presented to the jury. However, the Eleventh Circuit found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings regarding these items.
Barnwell raised different challenges on appeal. He argued that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his gang affiliation, which he claimed was more prejudicial than probative. Gang affiliation evidence often presents complex legal questions, as courts must balance its relevance to proving criminal activity against the risk of unfair prejudice to defendants.
Additionally, Barnwell contended that statements made by the district court judge during his sentencing hearing created grounds for recusal. He argued that these comments demonstrated bias that required the judge to step aside from the case.
The Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Rosenbaum, Luck, and Abudu, issued a per curiam opinion rejecting both defendants' arguments. The court conducted what it described as "careful consideration" of the challenges raised but found no reversible error in the district court's handling of the case.
The decision represents another example of federal courts' continued focus on drug conspiracy prosecutions, particularly those involving multiple defendants and extensive wiretap evidence. Such cases often rely heavily on electronic surveillance and testimony from cooperating witnesses to establish the scope and structure of alleged criminal organizations.
The use of aliases by both defendants—"Fat Boy" for Pertillo and "Whoop" or "Malixe" for Barnwell—reflects common practices in drug trafficking investigations, where participants often use street names to conceal their identities from law enforcement.
The case was designated for the non-argument calendar, meaning the court decided the appeal based on written briefs without oral arguments. This procedural designation typically indicates that the legal issues presented were considered straightforward or that precedent clearly supported the outcome.
The timing of the investigation, which began in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates law enforcement's continued pursuit of drug trafficking cases despite operational challenges during that period. Federal agencies maintained their focus on dismantling distribution networks through traditional investigative techniques including controlled purchases and wiretaps.
For prosecutors, the affirmance represents validation of their evidence-gathering and trial strategies in complex multi-defendant drug cases. The decision reinforces the admissibility of gang affiliation evidence and personal writings when properly tied to the charged offenses.
The defendants now face the prospect of serving their sentences unless they pursue further appellate options. They could potentially seek review by the full Eleventh Circuit through a petition for rehearing en banc, though such requests are rarely granted. Alternatively, they could petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests.
The case illustrates the challenges defendants face in overturning drug convictions on appeal, particularly when challenging evidentiary rulings. Appellate courts typically defer to trial judges' discretion in admitting evidence unless there is clear abuse of that discretion.
The Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, making this decision precedential for future drug conspiracy cases in those states. The court's approach to gang evidence and judicial recusal issues may influence how similar challenges are resolved in the circuit going forward.