United States v. Bowers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9435
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Four bank robberies in Iowa between Oct. 9–21, 2009, using firearms, with DNA and physical traces linked to Bowers in one scene.
- Bowers was arrested, Mirandized, and confessed to using firearms in the robberies; he provided a written statement taking responsibility.
- Eyewitness testimony and videotapes identified gun types in the robberies; witnesses described real firearms.
- In Oxford, bank floor mat fragments and an unspent bullet were found; FBI expert testimony related fragments to bullets, while another FBI report contradicted that view.
- DNA on a car in Oxford could not exclude Bowers as a contributor; the car contained an unspent bullet not matching the loan officer.
- Bowers was convicted on four armed-robbery counts and four firearm-enhancement counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and sentenced to 1,092 months; he challenges sufficiency, a motion for new trial, admissibility of expert testimony, and sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for last three robberies | Bowers: evidence insufficient to show real firearms. | Government: eyewitness and confession prove real firearms. | Sufficient evidence to establish use of real firearms. |
| Motion for new trial based on verdict against weight of evidence | Verdicts contrary to the evidence. | No miscarriage of justice; deference to jury. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Admission of Atwood's expert testimony on fragments | Testimony was prejudicial and unsupported. | Testimony proper weight, not admissibility; Daubert standards met. | Not an abuse of discretion; testimony admissible. |
| Sentencing under § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) for multiple convictions | O'Brien requires indictment of each element; cannot enhance. | Enhancement based on successive convictions charged in same indictment permissible. | District court did not violate O'Brien; sentencing proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stenger v. United States, 605 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency and de novo review of evidence standard)
- Starr v. United States, 533 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of motion for new trial reviewed for miscarriage of justice)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 581 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) (admissibility of expert testimony; Daubert framework)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- O'Brien v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (U.S. 2010) (recidivist sentencing factor; indictment vs. proof of elements)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1993) (second conviction in same indictment regarding recidivist provision)