United States v. Mario Washington, 702 F.3d 886

Defendants Mario Washington and Jerome Jones were convicted of carjacking; Washington 180-month sentence, Jones 330 months (210 for carjacking with serious bodily injury and 120 for using and carrying a firearm).
Lipford, the victim, was shot four times and his car was taken in the incident at a Memphis Citgo parking lot; Lipford suffered serious injuries and long recovery.
Government asserted the shooting occurred during a robbery/carjacking; defendants claimed a drug deal gone bad and that they fled on foot.
District court allowed impeachment of Lipford based on his prior theft-of-services conviction; that conviction was argued to involve dishonesty under Rule 609(a)(2) but was excluded.
Jury sent questions about premeditation and car theft; court clarified premeditation is not an element and did not provide collateral information about auto theft.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence, proper evidentiary rulings, appropriate jury-question handling, and correct application of sentencing enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for carjacking and intent	Government: sufficient to show taking Lipford’s car with intent to cause serious harm	Jones/Washington: disputed the taking and intent	Sufficient evidence; rational jurors could find required elements
Admissibility of Lipford’s theft-of-services conviction for impeachment	Lipford’s prior theft conviction should be admissible under Rule 609(a)(2)	Theft of services not a crime of dishonesty under Rule 609(a)(2)	Exclusion proper; theft of services typically not a crimen falsi crime
District court handling of jury questions on premeditation	Court should aid jury on legal elements	Court should avoid collateral/inappropriate instructions	Court properly clarified; not an abuse of discretion; premeditation not an element
Application of obstruction and life-threatening injury enhancements	Enhancements supported by perjury and grave injuries	Attack on perjury finding; credibility concerns	Enhancements properly applied; findings not clearly erroneous

Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (recognizes conditional intent under §2119)
Applewhaite, 195 F.3d 679 (3d Cir. 1999) (discusses nexus requirement for intent to carjack)
Harris, 420 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2005) (requires nexus between intent to harm and taking for some circuits)
Fisher, 648 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2011) (review of jury-question handling and supplemental instructions)
Nunez, 889 F.2d 1564 (6th Cir. 1989) (juror confusion and need to provide legal guidance)
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993) (perjury enhancement standards; right to testify context)
Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing district court findings of perjury)
Baggett, 342 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2003) (life-threatening injuries substantial evidence)