United States v. Robert Ford
726 F.3d 1028
8th Cir.2013Background
- Ford was charged with sexual abuse of an incapacitated person and kidnapping; acquitted on sexual abuse but convicted on kidnapping.
- Jury was instructed on both counts with five elements for Count 1 and four elements for Count 2, including Indian Country jurisdiction.
- Jury asked whether conviction on Count 1 was required to convict on Count 2; court issued a supplemental instruction stating they need not convict Count 1 to convict Count 2.
- A second supplemental instruction clarified kidnapping requires unlawful restraint; Ford did not object to the second instruction, but sought clarifications to the first.
- Ford moved for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial; district court denied both motions; appeal followed.
- Court held that supplemental instructions were not plainly erroneous, and the kidnapping conviction could stand independently of the sexual abuse acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error in supplemental instructions? | Ford | Ford | No plain error; instructions were not plainly erroneous. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping after acquittal on sexual abuse? | Ford | Government proved kidnapping independently of sexual abuse. | Sufficient evidence supported kidnapping conviction. |
| Denial of motion for a new trial? | Ford | Verdict supported by credibility and corroboration. | District court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (separate-indictment doctrine; no need to resolve inconsistent verdicts)
- United States v. Bordeaux, 84 F.3d 1544 (8th Cir. 1996) (or otherwise element under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) may be satisfied by defendant's expected benefit)
- United States v. Ironi, 525 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency review for kidnapping verdict despite inconsistent counts)
- United States v. Mayer, 674 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial ruling; miscarriage of justice standard)
- United States v. Campos, 306 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing new-trial decisions; weight of evidence)
- Katzenmeier v. Blackpowder Prods., Inc., 628 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2010) (instruction-reading capability by juries; read instructions as a whole)