United States v. Rodney Anderson
783 F.3d 727
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- October 20, 2008: an explosion and fire severely damaged the Hereford House in Kansas City; surveillance showed three individuals bringing gasoline, placing containers, setting an ignition device, and leaving minutes before the blast.
- Rodney Anderson (part-owner) was shown in surveillance on Sept. 27 escorting a hat-clad man through the restaurant and providing a key; the fired employee’s security code (not Anderson’s) was later used to deactivate the alarm before multiple entries including Oct. 12 and Oct. 20.
- Anderson faced severe financial distress pre-fire and signed insurance paperwork after a $300,000 advance from Travelers; he gave shifting explanations about meeting the visitor (potential buyer, moving stolen stoves, etc.).
- ATF investigation and pole-camera/tip evidence identified Vincent Pisciotta and Mark Sorrentino; multiple witnesses (including Jenifer Sorrentino) and Special Agent Roberts identified Pisciotta and Sorrentino in videos.
- Superseding indictment charged Anderson, Pisciotta, Sorrentino with conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371), arson (18 U.S.C. § 844(i)), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), and use of fire to commit another felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); jury convicted all on various counts and sentences were imposed.
- Defendants raised several trial challenges on appeal: validity of conspiracy-to-arson as a § 844(h) predicate and double jeopardy, severance, evidentiary rulings, Confrontation/Cross-examination limits, sufficiency of evidence, and a motion for new trial based on post-trial cell-phone records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to commit arson may be a predicate felony under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) | Govt: § 844(h) uses "any felony" and thus includes conspiracy to commit arson | Sorrentino: "any felony" should exclude offenses that typically involve fire to avoid redundancy | Court: Affirmed inclusion; conspiracy to commit arson can be a § 844(h) predicate (follows Riggio; statutory text is broad) |
| Whether convictions (conspiracy, arson, and § 844(h) using fire to commit that conspiracy) violate Double Jeopardy | Anderson/Pisciotta/Sorrentino: cumulative punishments impermissible; Corona supports Blockburger combination-analysis | Govt: Congress intended cumulative punishments under § 844(h); prior Eighth Circuit precedent supports separate punishments | Court: No double jeopardy violation; applied circuit precedent (Shriver, Ihmoud); Corona approach novel and not controlling; claim at least reasonably disputable |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying severance | Anderson: defenses irreconcilable and evidence of co-defendants’ alleged organized-crime ties prejudiced him | Govt: Joint trial appropriate; no severe or compelling prejudice | Court: Denial affirmed; defenses not irreconcilable and jury could compartmentalize; no Rule 14 violation shown |
| Whether exclusion/limitation of cross-examination of Jenifer Sorrentino violated Sixth Amendment Confrontation rights | Mark Sorrentino: needed to cross-examine about car-ramming incident and call an eyewitness to show witness bias/credibility | Govt: Bias and impeachment already developed; further inquiry cumulative or marginally relevant | Court: Limitation proper under Rule 608(b)/Van Arsdall; no abuse of discretion and no prejudice (bias had been shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riggio, 70 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy to commit arson may serve as § 844(h) predicate because conspiracy need not involve actual use of fire)
- United States v. Konopka, 409 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses whether arson can be § 844(h) predicate and reasons about redundancy of punishment)
- United States v. Corona, 108 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 1997) (applied a combination Blockburger analysis to conclude cumulative punishment violated Double Jeopardy)
- United States v. Shriver, 838 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1988) (found Congress intended cumulative punishment under § 844(h) for using fire and the underlying felony)
- United States v. Ihmoud, 454 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2006) (upheld cumulative punishment under § 844(h) and affirmed no double jeopardy in similar convictions)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for determining whether statutes authorize multiple punishments)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limitation on cross-examination permissible unless it would have produced a significantly different impression of credibility)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (preference for joint trials and standard for severance under Rule 14)