831 F.3d 1027
8th Cir.2016Background
- On Aug. 27, 2011 two armed carjackings occurred: Garrett Davis and William & Johnetta Smith were robbed at gunpoint by occupants of a red Chevrolet Lumina. Victims separately described a driver and a darker, heavier passenger/abcomplice.
- Police recovered a dark .40-caliber semi-automatic Glock from the Lumina, a live .40 caliber cartridge, the Smiths’ property (key, change, tapes), and latent fingerprints from the Lumina that later matched Scott.
- Detective Mayer pursued and observed the Lumina crash; he identified Scott in the passenger position from a photo lineup after receiving a tip two years later. The Smiths identified Scott from the REJIS photographic lineup.
- Scott was arrested Aug. 16, 2013, made post-arrest statements admitting he had been joyriding with King but denying involvement in the carjackings, and later pleaded guilty to Counts VI–IX but went to a bench trial on Counts I–V.
- The district court convicted Scott on all counts; Guidelines range produced an 84-month term on non-§924(c) counts. Mandatory consecutive §924(c) terms (7 yrs, 25 yrs, 25 yrs) produced an aggregate 768-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / admissibility of photo ID | Scott: photographic lineup was unreliable and suggestive; identifications should be suppressed; without them evidence is insufficient | Government: lineup was non-suggestive (REJIS, sequestering, advisement); victims positively identified Scott; fingerprints and other evidence link him | Court: lineup procedures not suggestive/unnecessary; identification reliable; evidence sufficient to support convictions |
| Sixth Amendment (right to counsel) re: postarrest statements | Scott: had counsel for unrelated charges; police should have notified counsel before questioning about carjackings | Government: Sixth Amendment is offense-specific; right to counsel for unrelated pending charges did not bar questioning about new, uncharged carjackings | Court: Sixth Amendment did not bar questioning on uncharged carjackings; statements admissible |
| Eighth Amendment / gross disproportionality of 768-month sentence | Scott: aggregate sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crimes | Government: statutes mandate severe consecutive §924(c) terms for multiple gun convictions; crimes were violent and threatened victims | Court: No inference of gross disproportionality; sentence does not violate Eighth Amendment |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence under §3553(a) | Scott: district court disregarded §3553(a) factors and imposed excessive sentence | Government: non-§924(c) term is within Guidelines; consecutive §924(c) terms are statutory and non-discretionary | Court: 84-month Guidelines term presumptively reasonable; §924(c) consecutive terms mandated by statute; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevens, 439 F.3d 983 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency after bench trial)
- United States v. Kain, 589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (bench-trial sufficiency standard)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (Due Process suppression of eyewitness ID requires suggestive and unnecessary police procedures)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality framework)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (comparative analysis for disproportionality in rare cases)
- United States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2010) (rarity of successful Eighth Amendment challenge to non-capital sentences)
- United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2007) (consecutive §924(c) sentences are statutory and not subject to reasonableness review)