United States v. Mark Cowden
882 F.3d 464
4th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Mark Cowden, a Hancock County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant, was tried for deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242) and making a false statement (18 U.S.C. § 1519); jury convicted on § 242 and acquitted on § 1519.
- Facts: after a DUI arrest by state trooper Hoder, restrained handcuffed arrestee Ryan Hamrick was taken to HCSO; Cowden, present at station, repeatedly used force (slamming head into wall, punching, grabbing throat) while others testified Hamrick was not resisting.
- Hamrick sustained visible facial injuries and required $3,044 in medical treatment.
- Before trial government gave Rule 404(b) notice and introduced evidence of two prior incidents (Settle domestic incident and nightclub incident) where Cowden used force against non-threatening subjects; district court gave limiting instructions.
- Cowden testified he acted to subdue an alleged head-butt threat; jury rejected that defense and found Cowden willfully deprived Hamrick of his Fourth Amendment right, resulting in bodily injury; sentenced to 18 months and ordered restitution for full medical expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Cowden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior "bad acts" under Rule 404(b) | Prior incidents show motive/intent to punish those who defied officers; relevant and necessary to rebut Cowden's self-defense claim | Prior acts were improper character evidence and unduly prejudicial | Admission affirmed: prior acts relevant to intent, necessary, reliable, and prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value (court gave limiting instructions) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove § 242 willfulness | Circumstantial evidence (statements about "our house/play by our rules," gratuitous force on restrained arrestee, witnesses' testimony) supports an inference of willful deprivation | Cowden lacked the requisite criminal intent; acted to suppress a threat (self-defense) | Verdict affirmed: evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jury instructions & verdict form (lesser-included misdemeanor and special interrogatories) | Court’s instruction properly distinguished felony/misdemeanor based on bodily injury; special verdict permitted in discretion | Court erred by refusing Cowden’s preferred lesser-included instruction and by using special interrogatories | No plain error: court’s instructions substantially covered the law requested and jury was properly directed before considering bodily-injury interrogatory |
| Restitution for medical expenses including injuries before station arrest | Medical expenses resulted from Cowden’s excessive force; MVRA requires restitution for victims of qualifying offenses | Some injuries predated Cowden’s conduct and thus restitution should be limited | Restitution affirmed: jury found bodily injury caused by Cowden and government proved amount by preponderance; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2010) (articulates four-factor test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (Rule 404(b) notice and limiting instruction principles)
- United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for admission of evidence)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1945) (willfulness may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2003) (defines willfulness element under § 242)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2015) (standard on objective unreasonableness of force relevant to constitutional excessive-force claims)