United States v. Iralee French, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13789
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- French and Moose robbed a Kansas City bank on Feb. 9, 2006; Adams complied but could not open the vault.
- They returned Feb. 24, 2006; French shot security guard Mayhugh during entry and stole his vehicle.
- Mayhugh died the next day from complications related to the shotgun wound; medical malpractice theories were raised.
- French was arrested in Aug. 2008, gave a custodial statement admitting participation and the shooting; statement was not recorded.
- Indicted Oct. 2008 on nine counts; trial in July 2011 resulted in convictions on Counts 1–5 and acquittals on others.
- Sentencing in June 2012 imposed 1044 months (87 years) consecutive; challenged on suppression and sentencing grounds; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of unrecorded custodial statement violated due process | French argues due process violation from lack of recording | French asserts recording was required; unrecorded statement prejudiced him | No; Williams controls; no due process error |
| Procedural error in sentencing—parsimony principle and §3553(a) factors | French claims district court failed to consider parsimony and disparities | District court considered arguments and factors; no error | No procedural error; court adequately explained and considered factors |
| Application of cross-reference §2B3.1(c)(1) to §2A1.1 for murder | Mayhugh’s death did not arise from the murder context, so cross-reference inappropriate | Cross-reference reflects full context of offense and injury extent | Proper cross-reference; court considered total injury and context |
| Substantive reasonableness of the consecutive sentence | Sentence is greater than necessary; youth and remorse ignored | Court misapplied factors or overly lenient in mitigation | Sentence within reason; record shows deterrence and protection as goals; not substantively unreasonable |
| Adequacy of explanation for sentence and deviation from guidelines | Court failed to address certain mitigation evidence | Court reviewed mitigation evidence and articulated substantial reasons | Court sufficiently explained and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005) (recording not constitutionally mandated for custodial interrogation)
- Jenner v. Smith, 982 F.2d 329 (8th Cir. 1993) (lack of record not per se inadmissible)
- United States v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural sentencing review standard)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; standard for procedural reasonableness; Gall framework)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement to provide principled explanation for sentence)
- United States v. Weasel Bear, 356 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2004) (cross-reference to murder guideline; consider full context of offense)