United States v. Durham
645 F.3d 883
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendants abducted Charles Zachary for ransom over drug debt and planned a ransom drop with Luella Dorenzo, Zachary's bank employee.
- Zachary suggested Dorenzo could obtain ransom money from the bank; a bank drop was arranged, including tracking devices and bait bills.
- Guns, threats, and intimidation were used at the stash location; Zachary was restrained and assaulted; the plan targeted funds at a federally insured bank.
- Six participants were indicted; Gibbs and Hoisington pled guilty and cooperated; Swopes and Collins pled guilty to Counts Two and Three; Callion and Durham went to trial and were convicted on Counts One and Two, acquitting on Count Three.
- Sentences varied: Swopes and Collins received lengthy sentences for Counts Two; Callion and Durham received concurrent sentences for Counts One and Two; Swopes’s sentence was later vacated and remanded due to a misapprehension at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Count Two | Callion and Durham lacked knowledge money came from the bank. | Government failed to show they intended to extort bank funds, not Zachary's money. | Sufficient evidence supported Count Two for both Callion and Durham. |
| Sufficiency of Count One | Knowledge and intent to commit bank extortion shown by conduct and statements. | Insufficient evidence of intent to commit the underlying offense. | Sufficient evidence supported Count One for Callion and Durham. |
| Leading questions to Agent Crocker | Leading questions were necessary to avoid inadmissible testimony. | Leading questions throughout improperly testified for the witness. | Not plain error; admission was within boundaries given the record. |
| § 2B3.2(b)(4)(A) enhancement | Zachary was a victim; broad interpretation of 'any victim' warranted. | Only the bank and government are victims; broader reading is improper. | District court properly applied the enhancement; Zachary qualifies as a victim. |
| Swopes’s sentence error | No significant error in sentencing Swopes; prior firearms use noted. | District court relied on erroneous facts about prior guns involvement. | Swopes’s sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Meza-Urtado, 351 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 2003) (leading questions rarely plain error; development of testimony)
- United States v. McGovern, 499 F.2d 1140 (1st Cir. 1974) (leading questions may mislead in contested areas)
- Stine v. Marathon Oil Co., 976 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1992) (leading questions may hinder credibility determinations)
- Dean v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2009) (gun-discharge triggers 924(c) minimum regardless of intent)
- United States v. Maiden, 606 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2010) (bodily-injury enhancement where target is not the victim)
- United States v. Guajardo-Martinez, 635 F.3d 1056 (7th Cir. 2011) (considering underlying conduct in sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Turner, 604 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2010) (evidence for career-offender considerations)
- United States v. Bates, 96 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 1996) (general vs specific intent in extortion context)