United States v. Michael Green
664 F. App'x 193
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Green and an accomplice impersonated police (red/blue lights, uniforms, badges), stopped a pickup, and forcibly removed and handcuffed the driver (Ortega) and two passengers (Rosado, Saez‑Santos).
- Green displayed a handgun, threatened to kill Ortega, pistol‑whipped occupants; victims escaped by jumping from the moving truck; Rosado sustained a fractured arm and nerve damage requiring hospitalization.
- Police found the fake police car (rental in Green’s name) with Green’s fingerprints, wallet (ID, cards), and phones; Ortega identified Green from a photo array; other forensic evidence (DNA) was inconclusive.
- Indictment: armed carjacking with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm (18 U.S.C. §2119) and use/carry of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §924(c)). Jury convicted on both counts.
- District Court limited scope of defense expert’s testimony about the specific photo array, excluded a juror who misanswered voir dire about relatives with criminal charges, denied Rule 29/33 motions, and applied sentencing enhancements for serious bodily injury and abduction.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of juror for cause | Dismissal improper; juror’s misanswer was an oversight | Trial judge reasonably doubted juror’s fitness; exclusion within discretion | No abuse of discretion; even if error, no prejudice shown; conviction stands |
| Sufficiency of firearm evidence | Gun may have been fake; testimony that it didn’t fire shows insufficiency | Witnesses saw a gun; non‑expert eyewitness ID can support firearm use | Evidence sufficient; eyewitness testimony adequate; plain‑error review fails |
| Sufficiency of mens rea for §2119 (intent to cause death/serious harm) | Threats were bluffing; lacked contemporaneous intent | Conditional intent suffices; threats, pistol‑whipping, and conduct show intent | Conviction supported: conditional and contemporaneous intent proven |
| Limiting expert Leippe’s testimony re: photo array | District Court wrongly barred expert from opining on this specific array | Expert’s general testimony was permitted; counsel used hypotheticals and closing to apply it | Any limitation was harmless: defense elicited similar points and evidence of guilt was overwhelming |
| Sentencing enhancements (serious bodily injury & abduction) | Fracture not a serious bodily injury; abduction wasn’t to facilitate crime/escape | Fracture required hospitalization/rehab; forcing victims into car facilitated escape | Enhancements proper: fracture meets serious‑injury definition; forced accompaniment was abduction that facilitated escape |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Polan, 970 F.2d 1280 (3d Cir.) (deference to trial judge on juror fitness)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (trial judge’s province in juror credibility/challenges)
- United States v. Martinez‑Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (right to impartial jury, not specific juror)
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) (conditional intent suffices for carjacking mens rea)
- United States v. Beverly, 99 F.3d 570 (3d Cir.) (non‑expert eyewitness testimony can support firearm use)
- United States v. Lake, 150 F.3d 269 (3d Cir.) (facts supporting intent in carjacking cases)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir.) (standard for reviewing serious bodily injury findings)
- United States v. Reynos, 680 F.3d 283 (3d Cir.) (forced movement can constitute abduction)