United States v. George Stanley, IV
711 F. App'x 693
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bey and Stanley were convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping; Bey was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Both received life sentences.
- The Government introduced testimony about Bey’s prior attempted robbery of the victim under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
- Bey represented himself for part of the trial, was removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, and his pro se status was terminated.
- Stanley moved to sever, arguing prejudice from Bey’s pro se representation and conduct. The district court denied severance.
- At sentencing the court applied Guidelines enhancements for the victim’s permanent or life‑threatening injuries, use of a deadly weapon, and sexual exploitation; both appellants challenged those enhancements on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) | Gov: Prior attempted robbery was admissible to show intent, plan, knowledge, and was reliable and not unfairly prejudicial | Bey: Evidence was improper propensity evidence and prejudicial | Court: Admission reviewed for abuse of discretion; evidence admissible under Rule 404(b); no abuse of discretion |
| Removal from courtroom and termination of self-representation | Gov: Removal and termination appropriate after repeated disruptive misconduct that prevented trial | Bey: Removal denied Sixth Amendment Faretta right and right to be present at trial | Court: Self-representation right not absolute; removal after warnings for disruptive conduct was proper; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Motion to sever based on co‑defendant’s pro se status | Gov: Joint trial favored; prompt removal and jury instruction cured any prejudice | Stanley: Pro se Bey prejudiced Stanley’s right to fair trial, warranting severance | Court: Denial of severance not an abuse of discretion; pro se status alone not grounds for severance; no miscarriage of justice |
| Sentencing enhancements (serious injury, weapon use, sexual exploitation) | Gov: Record supports enhancements; injuries were life‑threatening/maltreatment; firearm use and sexual exploitation within scope of conspiracy | Appellants: Enhancements unsupported by evidence or not attributable to defendant(s) | Court: Reviewed legal issues de novo, facts for clear error; enhancements upheld on the record; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Lespier v. United States, 725 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for admissibility under Rule 404(b))
- Williams v. United States, 445 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and limits)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may be removed for disruptive conduct after warning)
- Shealey v. United States, 614 F.3d 627 (4th Cir. 2010) (preference for joint trials; severance standards)
- Manigan v. United States, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (standards of review for Guidelines calculations)
- Bolton v. United States, 858 F.3d 905 (4th Cir. 2017) (Government bears preponderance burden for Guidelines enhancements)
- Jarrett v. United States, 684 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2012) (presence of pro se co‑defendant not per se grounds for severance)