United States v. Francis Cox
705 F. App'x 573
9th Cir.2017Background
- Francis Schaeffer Cox was convicted of conspiracy to murder a federal officer (18 U.S.C. §§ 1117, 1114) and solicitation to murder a federal officer (18 U.S.C. §§ 373, 1114) and appealed.
- At trial, Cox and co-conspirators formed a plan to attack government officials under certain anticipated conditions; they also organized a security team for a television-station event allegedly to guard against a non-existent federal "hit team."
- Cox challenged jury instructions (mental-state requirement for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, self-defense coverage, and unanimity on target), sufficiency of the evidence on both counts, several evidentiary rulings, and sought relief on sentencing.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed some claims for plain error and others de novo (assuming preservation), and analyzed whether the evidence established federal jurisdictional predicates for the charged offenses.
- Court affirmed conspiracy conviction, reversed and vacated the solicitation conviction (insufficient evidence), vacated all sentences, and remanded for resentencing in light of the solicitation reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions – mental state, self‑defense, unanimity | Instructions were adequate to explain required law to jury | Jury was not told it had to find conspiracy with first‑degree murder mens rea; self‑defense and unanimity not properly instructed | Any error on mens rea/unanimity was not plain or did not affect substantial rights; instructions adequately covered self‑defense theory; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence – conspiracy | Evidence showed agreement to attack federal officers and created a sufficient threat for federal jurisdiction | Agreement was merely for self‑defense and insufficient to prove conspiracy to murder a federal officer | Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence – solicitation | Formation of the security team manifested intent and solicited murder of a federal officer (federal hit team) | No rational juror could find intent to solicit first‑degree murder; the alleged federal hit team did not exist, so no federal jurisdiction | Solicitation conviction vacated: evidence insufficient on intent and because target (federal hit team) did not exist, no cognizable federal offense |
| Evidentiary rulings & sentencing | Admission of political speech and limiting instruction timing prejudiced Cox; trial counsel ineffective | Court’s evidentiary rulings and limiting instruction were within discretion; ineffective‑assistance claim is generally not resolved on direct appeal | Admission of political speech was not plainly erroneous; limiting instruction rulings not an abuse; ineffective‑assistance claim not reached; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing due to reversal of a count |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review standard)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error must be clear or obvious)
- Nevils v. United States, 598 F.3d 1158 (sufficiency review framed for jury verdicts)
- Feola v. United States, 420 U.S. 671 (federal jurisdiction based on threat to federal officer)
- Flyer v. United States, 633 F.3d 911 (plain‑error review of sufficiency claims)
- Stewart v. United States, 420 F.3d 1007 (intent inference for solicitation)
- Campanale v. United States, 518 F.2d 352 (limiting instruction timing not reversible if covered at trial close)
- Jeronimo v. United States, 398 F.3d 1149 (general rule against resolving ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Evans‑Martinez v. United States, 611 F.3d 635 (appellate power to vacate all sentences when one sentence affected by error)
- Gomez‑Osorio v. United States, 957 F.2d 636 (self‑defense theory and instructions)
- Knapp v. United States, 120 F.3d 928 (district court discretion in formulating instructions)
- Stoker v. United States, 587 F.2d 438 (instructional adequacy standard)
- Cruz v. United States, 554 F.3d 840 (plain‑error prongs met when conviction rests on insufficient evidence)
- Phillips v. United States, 704 F.3d 754 (preservation and standard for sufficiency review)