844 F.3d 723
8th Cir.2016Background
- Hassan and three associates planned and executed a robbery of an Omaha convenience-store gas station, taking about $150 and cartons of cigarettes.
- Witness Yusuf Xasan (a participant) and the store clerk testified for the government; Xasan testified Hassan proposed the robbery and received a share of proceeds.
- Pretrial discovery provided defense counsel a DVD containing sixteen camera-angle clips; at trial the government admitted and played only two clips (Exhibit 1).
- One played clip showed Hassan briefly leaving and standing outside the store; Hassan claimed this supported his lack-of-knowledge defense.
- Jury convicted Hassan of interference with commerce by robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951); district court denied Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) and Rule 33 (new trial) motions.
- Hassan appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent/aiding-and-abetting and prejudice from the government’s use of a truncated DVD (raising a Brady-related concern).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Hassan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of mens rea/aiding-and-abetting | Evidence (Xasan’s testimony, video, distribution of proceeds) supports that Hassan planned, participated, and intended the robbery | Hassan lacked requisite intent; at most mere presence; Xasan unreliable and contradictory | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, sufficient evidence supported conviction |
| Mere presence vs. participation | Circumstantial evidence (idea origination, entry, waiting outside, receiving proceeds) supports active participation | Presence outside store and limited conduct show nonparticipation or ignorance of robbery | Affirmed — jury could infer active role, not mere presence |
| Weight of evidence / new trial (Rule 33) | No reason the interest of justice requires a new trial; credibility and weight issues were for the jury | Requests new trial based on credibility doubts and alleged evidentiary problems | Denied — district court’s denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Alleged suppression/truncation of video (Brady claim) | Full video was disclosed in discovery; government’s use of a subset at trial is not suppression under Brady | Truncated exhibit prejudiced defense; counsel reasonably expected full DVD to be played at trial | Affirmed — no Brady violation; no evidence government misled or suppressed material evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stacks, 821 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 29 standard—evidence viewed in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Amaya, 731 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 33 standard—district court has broad discretion to grant new trial)
- United States v. Knight, 800 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2015) (district court may weigh credibility when deciding Rule 33 motions)
- United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellate limitation on reassessing witness credibility on Rule 29 review)
- United States v. Reda, 765 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1985) (mere presence at scene or association alone insufficient to prove guilt)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence by prosecution violates due process)