United States v. Jesse Foots
658 F. App'x 1010
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jesse Foots was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two Hobbs Act robberies, and two counts of using/brandishing a firearm in those robberies.
- Foots sought to present expert testimony from Dr. Brannon that ingestion of the drug “Flakka” causes aggression.
- The district court excluded Dr. Brannon’s testimony after a Daubert/Rule 702-style inquiry.
- The Government used a peremptory challenge to strike an African‑American prospective juror; Foots objected under Batson.
- At sentencing the court imposed a 462‑month sentence (within the Guidelines); Foots requested a downward variance arguing his sentence was unreasonable and disparate from a codefendant’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on Flakka effects | Exclude was error; Dr. Brannon could explain drug‑induced aggression | Dr. Brannon lacked relevant expertise, cited no reliable studies, and testimony would confuse jury | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in excluding testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert principles |
| Batson challenge to prosecution’s peremptory strike | Strike was racially motivated; court should have sustained Batson objection | Strike was race‑neutral: juror’s skepticism of testimonial (non‑physical) evidence made her unsuitable | Affirmed — prosecutor gave a credible race‑neutral reason; trial court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Denial of downward variance / sentence reasonableness | 462 months unreasonable; alleged disparity with lower‑sentenced codefendant | Sentence within Guidelines; court considered §3553(a) factors; codefendants not similarly situated | Affirmed — sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (peremptory strike rationale is race‑neutral unless inherently discriminatory)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges; establishes three‑step test)
- United States v. Folk, 754 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2014) (application of Batson framework in this circuit)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences and consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing unwarranted sentencing disparities and codefendant comparisons)
- United States v. Regueiro, 240 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (disparity between codefendant sentences generally not a basis for appellate relief)
- United States v. Allen‑Brown, 243 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2001) (deference to district court’s factual findings on juror excuse)
- United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 1243 (11th Cir. 1991) (standard for reviewing district court findings in Batson context)