United States v. Larry Corbett
750 F.3d 245
2d Cir.2014Background
- On January 14, 2008, Larry Corbett drove from Connecticut to the Bronx to buy 27 lbs of marijuana from George McPherson; McPherson brought ~9–10 lbs to Corbett’s minivan and entered the van outside his home.
- Corbett’s van left the dead-end street shortly after McPherson entered; no witnesses heard a struggle or gunfire at the house. McPherson’s body was found in Greenwich, CT, with two semi-automatic gunshot wounds to the back and his money, phones, and the duffel of marijuana missing.
- Corbett was arrested 15 days later, waived Miranda twice (after a phone call to his grandfather prompted by an officer’s Masonic reference), and made oral and written statements blaming an unidentified robber; he maintained he drove alone and denied killing McPherson.
- At bench trial the district court convicted Corbett of kidnapping resulting in death (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)), felony murder, robbery, drug possession with intent to distribute, and a related firearms offense; the court issued written findings and sentenced Corbett to mandatory life plus ten years.
- On appeal Corbett conceded inveiglement and interstate transport but challenged sufficiency of evidence that he “held” McPherson against his will under § 1201(a)(1), and separately challenged voluntariness of his statements and admission of his stepson’s recorded testimony.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it concluded the evidence supported a finding that Corbett intended to lure, hold, and transport McPherson against his will and that his statements and the minor’s testimony were admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Corbett’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether defendant “held” victim against will under § 1201(a) | Evidence insufficient to show Corbett held McPherson — inveiglement and transport alone don’t prove “hold” | Evidence showed Corbett lured McPherson into van, intended to hold him (by force, intimidation, or trickery), transported him interstate, and caused his death | Affirmed: jurist could find Corbett intended to and did hold McPherson against his will under § 1201(a) |
| Mens rea scope for decoy trickery: must decoy be backed by intent to use force? | (Implicit) Corbett argued insufficient proof of intent to use force to back deception | Government focused on defendant’s intent to continue control (no need to decide split among circuits) | Court did not adopt a rule for all cases but found sufficient evidence here that Corbett intended to hold victim (so no need to resolve circuit split) |
| Voluntariness of post-arrest statements (Miranda waiver after phone call) | Detective’s promise to “treat [defendant] like a Brother Mason” coerced waiver; statements involuntary | The Masonic reference was a vague promise of leniency; Corbett voluntarily waived after re-reading of Miranda | Affirmed: waiver voluntary; statements admissible |
| Admissibility of minor’s recorded testimony about seeing a semi-automatic gun | Testimony was impermissible character evidence and low probative value | Testimony was relevant to Corbett’s access to the type of weapon used and its whereabouts near time of arrest | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in admitting the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boone, 959 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir.) (decoy-plus-intent-to-use-force approach supporting "hold")
- United States v. Hoog, 504 F.2d 45 (8th Cir.) (decoy and continued trickery can satisfy "hold")
- United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir.) (luring victims into van then executing them affirmed § 1201(a) liability)
- United States v. Wills, 234 F.3d 174 (4th Cir.) (fake job advertisement luring across state lines qualifies under § 1201(a))
- United States v. Macklin, 671 F.2d 60 (2d Cir.) (describing the three elements of the kidnapping statute)
- United States v. Gaines, 295 F.3d 293 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing coercive promises from vague leniency in Miranda waiver analysis)