United States v. Dixon
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16823
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dixon was indicted for aiding and abetting a bank robbery; Liskow pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution.
- Liskow testified that Dixon planned and aided the robbery, including writing the demand note and acting as getaway driver.
- Officers found $4,097 in Dixon’s van, consistent with the robbery; Dixon denied involvement.
- A notebook and indentations matched the demand note; a forensic expert testified it was highly probable Dixon wrote the note.
- The jury found Dixon guilty; the district court sentenced him to 220 months in prison within the guidelines.
- During voir dire, a juror stated bias toward police; he was not seated on the jury and was struck peremptorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Dixon aided and abetted bank robbery. | No direct proof Dixon wrote the note or actively participated. | Evidence sufficient; substantial corroboration beyond Liskow’s testimony. |
| Bias in voir dire | No reversible error since juror was not seated and Dixon didn’t request dismissal. | The court should have sua sponte dismiss biased juror. | No error; Dixon’s rights not violated. |
| Sentencing procedure and explanation | District court erred in not explicitly articulating § 3553(a) factors. | Court adequately considered factors; no mechanical recital required. | Court properly explained and considered § 3553(a); sentence within range. |
| Disparity with co-defendant’s sentence | Disparity was unreasonable and unexplained. | Court properly found Dixon more culpable due to criminal history. | Disparity explained and not unwarranted; within court’s discretion. |
| § 5H1.3 downward departure | Court should have downwardly departed for mental/emotional conditions. | Court implicitly denied departure; denial unreviewable absent motive or authority. | No procedural error; court implicitly denied departure within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilder, 597 F.3d 936 (8th Cir.) (sufficiency standard; review for reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Cady, 495 F.2d 742 (8th Cir.1974) (aiding and abetting requires purposeful participation)
- United States v. McCraney, 612 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.2010) (credibility of cooperating witness is for jury)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (juror dismissal rights; peremptory challenges limited)
- United States v. Paul, 217 F.3d 989 (8th Cir.2000) (jury selection rights; peremptory challenges)
- United States v. Brown, 627 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir.2010) (§ 3553(a) factors; no mechanical recital required)
- United States v. Davis-Bey, 605 F.3d 479 (8th Cir.2010) (situational sentencing disparity considerations)
- United States v. Anderson, 570 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir.2009) (downward departures; authority and motive requirements)
- United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942 (8th Cir.2008) (awareness of law at sentencing)
- United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655 (8th Cir.2009) (presumption of reasonableness for guideline-range sentences)