United States v. John Hopper
436 F. App'x 414
6th Cir.2011Background
- Hopper was convicted by jury of conspiracy to injure a postal worker, assault with intent to rob a federal officer, and using/brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence; Ridley testified against Hopper.
- Before trial, Hopper moved to exclude evidence of other robberies; the district court admitted them under Rule 404(b) to prove identity, intent, and plan.
- The government presented testimony about Schafer (postal worker) robbery and other uncharged robberies by Hopper and Ridley.
- Aldridge testified about Hopper’s gang affiliation, possession of the gun, and involvement in the robberies; Ridley testified to Hopper’s participation.
- Ridley and Aldridge testified that Hopper and Ridley were members of the Rollin’ 40s Crips; the gun used in robberies was Ridley’s.
- At sentencing the probation officer applied a six-level official victim enhancement under § 3A1.2(b) based on the victim being a government employee; Hopper objected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) evidence admissibility | Hopper argues 404(b) misused as improper character proof | Government contends 404(b) admissible as background | Admissible under 404(b) for identity, intent, plan. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Counts One and Two | Sufficient evidence lacking to prove conspiracy and §111(a) | Evidence supports identity, intent, and causation | Evidence sufficient for both Counts. |
| Prosecutorial/mistrial issue about gang colors | Comments about gang colors prejudiced Hopper | Comments isolated and not reversible error | No reversible prosecutorial error; no mistrial granted. |
| Official victim enhancement § 3A1.2(a) | Enhancement not applicable due to lack of single/victim motivation | At least some motivation shown by victim being federal employee | Enhancement properly applied; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 F.3d 681 (U.S. 1988) (evidentiary foundation for Rule 404(b) demonstrations)
- Johnson v. United States, 27 F.3d 1186 (6th Cir. 1994) (identity evidence via MO design used for Rule 404(b))
- Damra, 621 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy elements and showing plan)
- Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (U.S. 1975) (requiring intent to assault not necessarily knowledge victim is federal officer)
- Farrow, 198 F.3d 179 (6th Cir. 1999) (no need to prove specific intent to injure federal officer under §111(a))
- Merriweather, 78 F.3d 1070 (6th Cir. 1996) (conspiracy and intent elements; admissibility standards for 404(b))
- Bell v. United States, 516 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for balancing probative value against prejudice under 404(b))
- United States v. Clark, 634 F.3d 874 (6th Cir. 2011) (harmless error analysis for 404(b) evidence)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutorial misconduct due process standard for mistrial)
- Farrow (duplicate cited above), 198 F.3d 179 (6th Cir. 1999) (see above)