United States v. John Thomas
897 F.3d 807
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant John "Jay" Thomas kidnapped the younger brother and sister of Whitney "Strawberry" Blackwell after she stole cash and drugs from him; the children were transported to Michigan and Kentucky before being recovered.
- Thomas was indicted on conspiracy to kidnap and two kidnapping counts; trial featured numerous eyewitnesses including Blackwell and the victims.
- Jury convicted Thomas on all counts; at sentencing the court adopted a Guidelines calculation that produced an offense level above the Guidelines chart and imposed life imprisonment.
- Thomas did not object in the district court to several issues he now raises on appeal (some objections were made at trial, others were not). Appellate review therefore applied plain-error or abuse-of-discretion standards as applicable.
- On appeal Thomas challenged: admission of certain testimony by Blackwell (other-act and prejudicial statements), admission of cell-site location information obtained without a warrant, two specific Guidelines enhancements (vulnerable victim and restraint), and an Alleyne issue (jury not asked to find victims were under 18 which triggered a 20-year mandatory minimum).
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Blackwell's testimony (other-act / prejudicial statements) | Testimony included inadmissible 404(b) other-act and unfairly prejudicial statements; court should have excluded or given limiting instruction sua sponte | Government took extensive steps to limit testimony; objections were addressed; no stronger remedy was requested | No plain error; district court did not abuse discretion in handling testimony and refrained from judicial "freelancing" in giving limiting instructions |
| Admission of cell-site location data (warrantless) | Collection and use of historical cell-site location info without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment; suppression warranted despite no pretrial motion | Defendant failed to move to suppress or show good cause; district court would not have abused discretion in denying untimely motion | Affirmed — defendant cannot raise the suppression argument on appeal after failing to seek suppression in district court (no good-cause shown) |
| Guidelines enhancements (§3A1.1 vulnerable victim; §3A1.3 restraint) | Enhancements improper: vulnerable-victim double-counts age; restraint enhancement conflicts with Application Note 2 for kidnapping | Government defends enhancements (not persuasive re: restraint) | Vulnerable-victim enhancement proper; restraint enhancement was erroneous but harmless because correcting it would not change the Guidelines range (still life) and judge relied on §3553(a) factors |
| Alleyne error (jury not asked to find victims <18) | Failure to submit age to jury violated Alleyne and affected mandatory minimum | Error was forfeited but plain; however evidence of ages was overwhelming and mandatory minimum far below Guidelines/actual sentence | Alleyne error found but harmless under plain-error review — evidence of victims’ ages was uncontested and the 20-year minimum would not have affected the life sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.) (describing 404(b) framework and cautioning against sua sponte limiting instructions)
- United States v. Curtis, 781 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Adams, 628 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review when no district-court objection)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error framework for Guidelines errors and reasonable-probability of different outcome)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (clarifying fourth prong of plain-error review)
- United States v. Daniels, 803 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2015) (failure to file pretrial suppression motion defeats later Fourth Amendment challenge)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (Supreme Court holding that certain cell-site location information searches are Fourth Amendment searches)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to the jury)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (Apprendi/Alleyne errors not plain where evidence is overwhelming and uncontroverted)