United States v. Michael Slager
912 F.3d 224
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer, admitted he willfully shot and killed Walter Scott, who was unarmed and running away, and pleaded guilty to deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
- Federal indictment followed a state murder trial that ended in a mistrial; Slager entered a global plea agreement: federal guilty plea, state murder charge dismissed, and a recommended three-level reduction for acceptance.
- Video by eyewitness Feidin Santana showed Scott running away when Slager fired eight shots (five striking Scott in the back); Santana consistently testified that Scott never had the taser in hand or charged Slager.
- Slager gave multiple, materially inconsistent accounts (on-scene, SLED interview, state trial, federal pretrial) claiming at various times that Scott had tasered or attacked him.
- At sentencing the district court credited Santana over Slager, found malice aforethought (cross-referenced second-degree murder under U.S.S.G. §2H1.1), and applied a two-level obstruction enhancement for Slager’s false statements to SLED.
- Slager appealed, arguing the cross-reference should have been voluntary manslaughter (heat-of-passion) and that applying the obstruction enhancement was erroneous; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Slager) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper cross-reference under U.S.S.G. §2H1.1 (murder vs. manslaughter) | Second-degree murder is appropriate because Slager acted with malice by willfully and recklessly firing at a fleeing, unarmed person. | Heat-of-passion/voluntary manslaughter applies because Slager was provoked and engaged in mutual combat, negating malice. | Court affirmed second-degree murder cross-reference: credible facts supported malice and provocation was inadequate. |
| Credibility of witnesses (Santana vs. Slager) | Santana’s consistent testimony and video corroboration establish the factual record. | Slager’s expert witnesses and his evolving accounts support his version. | Court credited Santana; discredited Slager’s inconsistent accounts and found experts equivocal. |
| Application of U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement | Enhancement appropriate because Slager willfully gave materially false statements that could have significantly impeded investigation. | Statements were unsworn, and investigators already had the video, so enhancement inappropriate. | Court upheld enhancement (no plain error): law unsettled among circuits; district court permissibly found attempted obstruction. |
| Plain-error review for unraised sentencing claim | N/A | Obstruction challenge raised for first time on appeal; must show plain error. | No plain error: not an obvious or settled error under current law. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177 (4th Cir.) (burden to prove cross-referenced offense by preponderance at sentencing)
- United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377 (4th Cir.) (malice may be inferred from reckless, gross deviation and credibility determinations at sentencing)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259 (4th Cir.) (malice found where defendant engaged in reckless firing of a firearm)
- United States v. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945 (4th Cir.) (malice aforethought distinguishes murder from manslaughter)
- United States v. Celestine, 510 F.2d 457 (9th Cir.) (use of a weapon in a manner naturally likely to cause death supports malice)
- United States v. Velazquez, 246 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.) (heat-of-passion assessed by reasonable-officer standard for law enforcement defendants)