964 F.3d 703
8th Cir.2020Background
- James Dowty was indicted for second-degree murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111) and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) for the July 20, 2016 shooting death of 14-year-old T.C. on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
- Three teenagers who were with T.C. (R.O., Youngman, and A.R.C.) testified they saw and recognized Dowty as the shooter; two civilians and an officer corroborated lighting and scene conditions.
- Physical evidence included a shell casing at the scene and clothing (red shoes, backpacks, hats, shorts) found in Dowty’s bedroom; the gun and bullet were never recovered.
- Defense presented an expert on visual perception who opined that, given conditions, positive identification to the exclusion of all others was unlikely.
- A supervised, brief pretrial meeting among the three teenage witnesses occurred; one witness later said law enforcement blamed him and another said “Don’t worry, we got this Bro.”
- A jury convicted Dowty on both counts; the district court denied his Rule 29 motion and a Rule 33 new-trial motion, then sentenced him to 360 months; Dowty appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Dowty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of Rule 33 new-trial motion | Evidence and identifications supported conviction; district court properly weighed credibility | Eyewitness IDs were unreliable (witnesses intoxicated, inconsistent); expert showed ID impossible — verdict a miscarriage of justice | Affirmed: denial not a clear and manifest abuse of discretion; evidence and corroboration sufficient to deny new trial |
| 2) Allowing brief pretrial meeting of three witnesses | Meeting was supervised and limited; no prejudice shown | Meeting (and comment “we got this”) allowed witness coaching and violated sequestration, causing prejudice | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion and no shown prejudice; defense had opportunity to cross-examine |
| 3) Failure to give a specific eyewitness-identification instruction | General credibility instruction adequately covered concerns; defendant did not request the specific instruction | Plain error: court should have given Model Instr. §4.08 because case relied on eyewitness IDs | Affirmed: plain-error standard not met; general instruction fairly submitted issues and government’s case was not solely on questionable ID |
| 4) Denial of jury view of crime scene at night | Viewing would be burdensome, 90-mile each-way, unlikely to reproduce similar lighting, and cumulative of testimony/photos | Denial impeded confrontation and ability to test eyewitness testimony; requested nighttime site visit | Affirmed: denial within discretion as viewing would be time-consuming, cumulative, and possibly introduce extraneous matters; Confrontation Clause not implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amaya, 731 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing Rule 33 denial)
- United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2009) (sequestration and new-trial motions are disfavored)
- United States v. Delacruz, 865 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2017) (weight-of-evidence review for new trial)
- United States v. Bertling, 510 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court should not grant a new trial merely because it would have reached a different verdict)
- United States v. Mays, 822 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1987) (reversible error when court refuses specific eyewitness instruction if conviction rests solely on questionable ID)
- United States v. Grey Bear, 883 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1989) (general credibility instructions can adequately address eyewitness issues)
- United States v. Scroggins, 648 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2011) (denial of jury view may be proper when cumulative of testimony and photographs)
- United States v. Triplett, 195 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 1999) (trial court’s discretion over jury view of scene)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved instructional errors)