United States v. Paul Thomas
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24176
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Half-brothers Paul Thomas and Derrick Hodges were convicted on multiple counts of conspiracy, bank robbery, and weapons offenses tied to five robberies in eastern Texas (2005–2007).
- Evidence included pattern testimony, security photos/videos, DNA profiles, bolt-cutters, and bait bills; the government tied items to Thomas or Hodges across robberies.
- Getaway vehicles were stolen, abandoned, and sometimes found with matching items; Hodges’s DNA on gloves and a t-shirt linked him to specific counts; Thomas’s DNA on shoes connected him to others.
- Thomas and Hodges were jointly tried; the district court denied severance, and both challenged issues including sufficiency of evidence and search warrants.
- Thomas argued several search warrants were invalid under Franks; Hodges challenged juror bias and his sentence under Eighth Amendment standards.
- The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, addressing sufficiency, severance, Deal v. United States, Franks challenges, and juror-bias claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification evidence | Thomas: lack of direct links; Hodges: DNA/habits establish connection | Thomas: insufficient scene identification; Hodges: DNA too weak or incidental | Sufficient evidence supports convictions; pattern plus DNA and circumstantial links sustain identification |
| Severance and prejudice in joint trial | Thomas: joinder prejudiced by misidentification; Hodges: similar prejudice | Severance necessary to avoid mutual prejudice | No abuse of discretion; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice; joint trial upheld |
| Deal v. United States and stacking of § 924(c) sentences | Thomas/Hodges object to stacked firearms sentences under Deal | Deal should be reconsidered; argues improper stacking | Deal governs; government properly stacked sentences; affirmed |
| Thomas – Franks hearing for warrants | Affidavits contained deliberate falsehoods affecting probable cause | Redacted affidavits still show probable cause; hearing warranted | No clear error; after redaction probable cause remains; Franks hearing not required |
| Hodges – juror bias and new trial | Juror knew Hodges; bias possible; new trial or hearing warranted | No actual/implied bias; no new trial required | No abuse of discretion; no bias established; convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903 (5th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency review standard after motions for acquittal)
- United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of sufficiency; light favorable view)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2002) (weighing direct vs circumstantial evidence; pattern evidence)
- United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456 (5th Cir. 1993) (joinder/severance considerations in joint trials)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (severance allowed to cure prejudice; limiting instructions)
- United States v. Matthews, 178 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) (limiting instruction effectiveness; handling of prejudice)
- United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1977) (conspiracy case; gray area of mutual prejudice)
- United States v. Sibley, 448 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2006) (Franks doctrine and probable cause evaluation)
- United States v. Mota, 598 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1979) (counsel argument not evidence; remedial instructions)