United States v. Ruth Robinson
813 F.3d 251
6th Cir.2016Background
- 2012 Martin, Kentucky mayoral election: incumbent Ruth Thomasine Robinson sought reelection; close race contested with federal-election-day offices on the ballot (making the election covered by federal vote‑buying statute).
- Government alleged a scheme by Thomasine Robinson, her husband James Robinson, and stepson James Steven ("Steven") Robinson to secure votes through bribery, coercion, and intimidation (including paying voters, supervising/filling absentee ballots, threats of eviction, and knocking on doors to coerce voting behavior).
- Jury convicted all three on vote‑buying counts (52 U.S.C. § 10307(c)); Thomasine and Steven convicted of conspiracy to violate civil rights (18 U.S.C. § 241); James’s conspiracy conviction was later vacated on Rule 29 motion by the district court.
- Sentences: James — 40 months (above Guidelines) with leadership and obstruction enhancements; Steven — 21 months + 3 years supervised release with special condition to abstain from alcohol; Thomasine — 33 months.
- Appeals challenged sufficiency of evidence for convictions (Thomasine and Steven), the alcohol abstention condition (Steven), reservation of Rule 29 motion (James), application of sentencing enhancements (James), and substantive reasonableness of James’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Thomasine’s vote‑buying and § 241 conspiracy convictions | Gov: testimony (e.g., Ruby Wallen, Ginger Stumbo) showed payments, absentee‑ballot supervision, threats and tacit agreement to coerce votes | Thomasine: insufficient proof she personally coerced or intended to conspire; Rule 29 should have been granted | Affirmed: Wallen’s testimony supports vote‑buying; Stumbo’s testimony supports a tacit conspiracy and intent to intimidate, sustaining § 241 conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Steven’s § 241 conspiracy; validity of alcohol‑abstention condition | Gov: testimony (Robert Clay, Henry Mullins) showed Steven’s role in knocking/pressuring Clay and recruiting Mullins — evidence of intimidation and conspiracy; PSR and defendant’s history support substance‑treatment need | Steven: insufficient evidence of conspiratorial intent; alcohol abstention is overbroad | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conspiracy; alcohol abstention as special condition was procedurally and substantively reasonable (plain‑error reviewed) |
| District court’s reservation of James’s Rule 29 motion at close of government’s case | Gov: Rule 29 may be reserved under modern Rule 29(b) and Mathis | James: reservation was erroneous and prejudicial because court later granted his Rule 29 as to conspiracy | Affirmed: reservation is permitted by Rule 29(b) as amended and by Mathis; Reifsteck is superseded |
| Sentencing: leadership (§3B1.1), obstruction (§3C1.1), and substantive reasonableness of James’s 40‑month sentence | Gov: findings supported by record (payments to Mullins, menacing conduct toward gov’t employees, post‑arrest intimidation) and §3553(a) factors justify upward variance | James: enhancements misapplied; sentence greater than necessary and unreasonable | Affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; enhancements properly applied; 40‑month sentence is not substantively unreasonable (district court gave adequate §3553(a) reasons) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fisher, 648 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Sease, 659 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency standard — view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (§ 241 protects the right to cast votes for preferred candidates)
- Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (1974) (protecting votes from dilution by unlawfully procured votes)
- United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of § 241 conspiracy: agreement and specific intent)
- United States v. Gresser, 935 F.2d 96 (6th Cir. 1991) (conspiracies may be proven by circumstantial evidence; tacit understanding suffices)
- United States v. Mathis, 738 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2013) (Rule 29 reservation at close of government’s case permitted)
- United States v. Reifsteck, 841 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1988) (pre‑1994 holding on Rule 29 reservation; discussed and superseded)
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 66 (2001) (deference in applying leadership enhancements)
- United States v. Kamper, 748 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (behavior reasonably construed as a threat can support § 3C1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Smith, 516 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of substantive reasonableness of sentence)