100 F.4th 1184
10th Cir.2024Background
- Patrick Murphy was originally convicted in Oklahoma state court for the murder of George Jacobs in 1999, receiving the death penalty.
- Following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, it was determined the crime occurred on the Muscogee (Creek) reservation, where Murphy, a tribal member, could only be prosecuted federally under the Major Crimes Act.
- In 2020—over 20 years after the crime—a federal grand jury indicted Murphy for second-degree murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death.
- At trial, he was convicted of second-degree murder and two kidnapping-related charges but acquitted on one count of kidnapping affecting a different victim.
- The district court sentenced him to concurrent life sentences on all three counts. Murphy timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Kidnapping | Murphy: No evidence he held the victim for an appreciable period. | Government: Evidence showed sufficient holding for charge. | For Murphy; reversed kidnapping convictions. |
| Statute of Limitations | Murphy: Five-year limit applies since death penalty unavailable. | Government: No limit—offenses are capital under statute. | For Government; no bar to prosecution. |
| Pre-indictment Delay (Due Process) | Murphy: 20-year delay violated Fifth Amendment due process. | Government: No intent to gain advantage; delay was justified | For Government; delay not unconstitutional. |
| Resentencing Required | Murphy: Remand necessary if kidnapping convictions reversed. | Government: Resentencing not needed (if convictions stand). | For Murphy; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455 (1946) (held kidnapping under federal statute requires unlawful restraint for an appreciable period, not just incidental restraint)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (held much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian Country for criminal jurisdiction)
- United States v. Gabaldon, 389 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2004) (applied similar analysis to distinguish incidental confinement from kidnapping)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (preindictment delay must be purposeful/tactical to violate due process)
- United States v. Stevens, 881 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2018) (reviews denials of motions to dismiss for abuse of discretion)