In United States v. Brown et al., No. 18-10772, 10972
(Aug. 14, 2019) (William Pryor, Newsom, Branch), the Court affirmed the
defendants' convictions but vacated their sentences.
First, the Court found that sufficient evidence supported a
police officer's conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law when
he beat and tased the passenger in a fleeing vehicle. Ample evidence supported the jury's finding
that the defendant willfully used excessive force under the facts and
circumstances. The Court also found no
abuse of discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial under
Rule 33 based on a purportedly inconsistent verdict (his codefendants were
acquitted) and an enhanced video of the incident that was neither "newly
discovered" nor material.
Second, the Court found that sufficient evidence supported
the supervising officer's conviction for obstruction of justice when he
instructed his subordinates to change their reports to better reflect what
happened after a video came to light, and then gave misleading answers to
questions by the FBI. The Court also found that, because he first proposed
it, the defendant invited any error in connection with the pattern Allen
charge, and the Court rejected his argument that the instruction was unuduly
coercive. And the Court found no abuse
of discretion under Rule 606(b) when the court declined to interview a juror
who alleged misconduct (e.g., that jurors were biased, bullied into voting
guilty, discounted her opinion because she had "crush" on the
defendant), or to compel the disclosure of the contents of a juror's
post-trial conversation with a spouse of an AUSA about her experience as a
juror.
Third, and on a cross-appeal by the government, the Court
vacated the defendants' downward-variance sentences of probation. To calculate the guidelines, the ultimate question was whether the officer used the taser with intent to cause bodily
injury. The district court found that he
did not because there was evidence that the officer used it to gain compliance
rather than to cause bodily injury.
However, it was possible that the officer intended both to gain
compliance and cause bodily injury.
Because it was unclear whether the district court applied an incorrect
legal standard to reach its factual conclusion, the Court vacated the sentences
and remanded for re-sentencing.
