United States v. Robert Wade Umbach
708 F. App'x 533
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- At BikeFest in Sept. 2012 Ronnie Parrish was forcefully restrained and beaten; Deputy Wiley Griffin IV struck Parrish multiple times with a flashlight causing significant facial and ocular injuries. Deputies Umbach and Kines were present and participated in restraining Parrish.
- DCSO officers (including Umbach and Kines) drafted witness statements and a DCSO incident report that omitted Griffin IV’s flashlight assault; Parrish was later charged in state court (convicted of obstruction).
- Parrish learned Griffin IV was his assailant months later and reported the incident to the FBI; FBI Agent McDermond interviewed Umbach and Kines (audio-recorded). Both made statements to the FBI minimizing or denying Griffin IV’s use of force.
- A federal grand jury indicted Umbach and Kines for (1) false report under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (acquitted) and (2) witness/victim tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) based on false statements to the FBI (convicted). They were sentenced (15 months) with a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions (sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and evidentiary rulings challenged), found no prejudicial cumulative error, but agreed the § 3B1.3 enhancement was improper and vacated the sentences for resentencing without that enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) | Gov: Interviews and witness statements show defendants knowingly made false statements to FBI to hinder federal investigation | Umbach/Kines: Statements were equivocal, subjective, or honest mistakes; lacked knowledge that Griffin IV struck Parrish | Affirmed: Jury reasonably found statements were false and knowing/misleading; circumstantial evidence supports knowledge and intent. |
| Jury instruction language on intent and relevant considerations | Gov: Instruction properly allowed jury to consider knowledge of federal investigations and defendants’ training in assessing intent | Kines: Instructions overemphasized prosecution theory and improperly suggested knowledge of federal investigation was required or salient | Affirmed: Instructions accurate legal statement; permissible to tell jurors they may consider such factors in assessing intent. |
| Evidentiary rulings (lay opinion, hearsay, impeachment, completeness, replaying recordings) | Gov: Admission of Nix’s lay-opinion on force, Nix’s account of Sheriff’s remark (for effect), limited excerpts, rebuttal witnesses, and replaying recordings were proper and within discretion | Kines: Nix’s testimony was expert in lay guise; Sheriff remark was hearsay; excluded impeachment from civil complaint and excluded certain prior-trial excerpts; rule-of-completeness misapplied; replay unduly emphasized evidence | Affirmed: Court acted within discretion; Nix’s lay opinion admissible; Sheriff’s remark admissible to show effect; exclusion of some impeachment/prior-excerpt evidence harmless; replay precautions adequate. |
| Cumulative error | N/A (defense asserted multiple errors combined denied fair trial) | Kines: Multiple non-reversible errors cumulatively prejudiced him | Denied: Only arguable error (civil-complaint impeachment) would be harmless; no cumulative prejudice established. |
| Sentencing: U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement | Gov: Enhancement applied; district court found abuse of trust justified | Defendants: No evidence defendants abused public-trust position in a way that significantly facilitated or concealed the offense | Vacated sentences: All parties agree enhancement inapplicable; court remanded for resentencing without § 3B1.3. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (abrogation on other grounds noted)
- United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2000) (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Chafin, 808 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2015) (knowledge of federal actor not required for § 1512 intent)
- United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1992) (lay-officer opinion on reasonableness of force admissible under Rule 701 in certain circumstances)
- United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 2001) (reaffirming Myers post-Rule 701 amendments)
- Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., 320 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2003) (discussing Rule 701 after 2000 amendments)
- United States v. Williams, 59 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 1995) (admissibility of prior trial testimony when offered against the declarant)
- United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487 (11th Cir. 2014) (cumulative-error doctrine)
- United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312 (11th Cir. 1995) (disbelieved defendant statements may be considered as substantive evidence)
- United States v. Zepeda-Santana, 569 F.2d 1386 (5th Cir.) (permitting replay of audio during deliberations with safeguards)
- United States v. Alfonso, 552 F.2d 605 (5th Cir.) (same principle on replaying evidence)
- United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for abuse-of-trust enhancement legal conclusion)
- United States v. Ward, 222 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2000) (elements required for § 3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement)