United States v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1075
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Demetrius Bowers was tried on a superseding indictment charging eight Hobbs Act armed robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and eight corresponding § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) counts for brandishing a firearm; jury convicted on all 16 counts.
- Bowers filed a late motion to sever the 16 counts into separate trials shortly before trial; the district court denied severance as untimely and on the merits, offering a limiting jury instruction.
- Trial evidence included witness descriptions, surveillance photos/videos, DNA from a modified wool cap found near the first robbery (Papa John’s), cell‑phone tower “hit” records tied to a MetroPCS phone the government linked to Bowers, inculpatory phone calls/texts, and a distinctive green paver like one near Bowers’s former residence.
- The government argued modus operandi (unique entry method: throwing bricks/pavers through lower glass and entering under the push bar) connected the eight robberies and allowed identity evidence from one robbery to be used to identify the perpetrator across all.
- District court denied Rule 29 motions for acquittal and posttrial relief; at sentencing the court rejected constitutional challenges to § 924(c) and imposed 140 months for the Hobbs Act convictions and a consecutive mandatory 182‑year term for the § 924(c) counts.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: (1) denial of untimely severance (forfeited → plain‑error review; no compelling prejudice), (2) sufficiency of identity evidence (totality of modus operandi, DNA, cell‑tower hits, appearance, texts, paver), and (3) § 924(c) sentence constitutionality under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Bowers' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to sever joined counts | Motion to sever filed late; trial presentation and juror request for a timeline showed confusion and cumulation prejudice from joinder | Joinder proper under Rule 8; motion forfeited/untimely; any prejudice cured by limiting instruction (Pattern B‑10.2) | Forfeiture → plain‑error review; no compelling prejudice shown; affirm denial of severance |
| Sufficiency of identity evidence for convictions | DNA on mask is insufficient alone; cell‑tower data and other evidence do not prove Bowers was the robber beyond reasonable doubt | Modus operandi and totality of evidence (DNA predominance on mask + consistent descriptions, tower hits, photos, texts, paver, inculpatory calls) permit reasonable inferences of identity | Evidence sufficient: jurors could infer same perpetrator across robberies and identify Bowers beyond reasonable doubt; affirm Rule 29 denial |
| Admissibility/use of DNA predominance inference (Bonner issue) | Reliance on DNA predominance to infer wearing mask that night is an impermissible scientific inference | Where robberies share distinctive modus operandi, identity evidence from other robberies can corroborate DNA and render the inference permissible | Court limits Bonner: DNA alone might be insufficient, but combined with modus operandi and corroborating identity evidence across related offenses, the inference is permissible |
| Constitutionality of consecutive mandatory § 924(c) sentences (182 years) | Mandatory minimums deny individualized sentencing and are cruel, unusual, or violate separation of powers | Precedent upholds mandatory § 924(c) minima; Congress may set penalties; Eighth Amendment challenges fail under proportionality precedents | Rejected: claims foreclosed by binding Supreme Court/Eleventh Circuit precedent; sentence not grossly disproportionate; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error standard) (establishes four‑part plain‑error test)
- United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380 (11th Cir. 1993) (standard for compelling prejudice and jurors’ ability to follow limiting instructions in severance analysis)
- United States v. Bonner, 648 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2011) (caution on inferring that defendant last wore an item based solely on DNA predominance)
- United States v. Tate, 586 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2009) (modus operandi and stronger direct linking evidence can support inference across multiple robberies)
- United States v. Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2013) (admissibility of modus operandi evidence to prove identity)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework; individualized sentencing not required in noncapital cases)
- United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Amendment review and deference to Congress on sentencing ranges)
- United States v. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir.) (application of amended Rule 12 on appeal where just and practicable)
- United States v. Paige, 604 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (separation‑of‑powers challenge to mandatory minimums rejected)