United States v. Phillip Harper
815 F.3d 1032
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- A carjacking conspiracy lasted from late 2010 to early 2011 involving the Harpers and Edmond, with carjacking, title falsification, and violent thefts across multiple incidents.
- Harper brothers and Edmond were indicted and tried together; counts included multiple carjackings, one attempted carjacking, and related § 924(c) firearms charges.
- Edmond participated by buying/selling carjacked cars, fabricating titles, and paying others to facilitate thefts, creating a market for stolen vehicles with keys.
- Evidence showed firearms were used or brandished in several carjackings; defendants were convicted on conspiracy and carjacking counts with co-conspirator liability for § 924(c).
- Challenges raised included sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings (intrinsic acts), jury pool/voting-rights claims, grand-jury procedures, and sentencing methodology under § 924(c) and guidelines.
- District court sentenced each defendant to extensive prison terms; convictions and sentences were appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of carjacking and § 924(c) evidence | Harper and Phillip challenge sufficiency of carjacking and firearms proof. | Defendants contend evidence failed to prove intent and use of firearms. | Sufficient evidence supports carjackings and § 924(c) convictions. |
| Edmond conspiracy and Pinkerton liability for firearms | Edmond argues conspiracy and co-conspirator liability supports § 924(c). | Rosemond limits or changes conspiracy/aid theories to firearms liability. | Pinkerton theory valid; evidence shows foreseeability of firearms in conspiracies; Rosemond does not bar Pinkerton liability. |
| Admission of intrinsic acts (December 2010 shooting) | Intricate acts evidence admitted to connect gun and carjackings. | Challenged as improper propensity or non-inextricably intertwined evidence. | District court did not abuse discretion; intrinsic acts properly admitted, probative of conspiracy and relationships. |
| Jury pool and Sixth Amendment challenges | Edmond and Phillip claim jury pool lacked Detroit residents/African Americans. | Challenge raised late; lack of cause/prejudice; plain-error review applies for new constitutional arguments. | Claim fails; no systemic exclusion; any new claims reviewed for plain error with no reversible error found. |
| Sentencing method under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and guidelines | Court should consider mandatory § 924(c) sentences when calculating guidelines. | Franklin requires separate calculation of underlying crimes without § 924(c) sentence impact. | Court followed Franklin; proper to determine underlying sentences first; correct outcome affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (U.S. 2014) (Aiding-and-abetting liability requires advance knowledge; Pinkerton liability unaffected)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1946) (Conspiracy liability based on reasonable foreseeability of co-conspirator crimes)
- United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 962 (6th Cir. 2013) (Brandishing/possession of weapon suffices for carjacking intent)
- United States v. Mack, 729 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (Evidence of gun presence and intent supports firearms convictions)
- United States v. Odom, 13 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1994) (Co-conspirator liability for § 924(c) under Pinkerton framework)
- United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (Support for Pinkerton instruction when defendant not charged with conspiracy)
- Franklin v. United States, 499 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (Separate sentencing for underlying crimes versus § 924(c) sentences)