United States v. Samuel Mullet, Sr.
767 F.3d 585
6th Cir.2014Background
- Sixteen Bergholz Amish community members were indicted for hate crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2)(A) for beard and hair-cutting assaults on nine victims linked to Amish religious beliefs.
- The assaults occurred September–November 2011, involving multiple family and community conflicts culminating in five separate attacks.
- The district court instructed the jury that motive could be shown by a ‘significant factor’ rather than requiring but-for causation, a point challenged by the defense.
- After Burrage v. United States (2014) clarified but-for causation, the Sixth Circuit concluded the jury instruction error was not harmless and reversed the hate-crime convictions, remanding for a new trial.
- The court also addressed issues of conspiracy liability, sufficiency of evidence, and potential other challenges but did not decide them due to the causation ruling.
- Dissenting views urged a harmless-error determination and urged Samuel Mullet, Sr.’s conviction to stand, emphasizing explicit religious motivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘because of’ requires but-for causation in § 249(a)(2)(A) | Mullet argued but-for causation should apply; the defense pressed ‘significant factor’. | Mullet contends the government need show only a significant motivating factor; the trial court adopted that standard. | But-for causation required; error not harmless; remand for new trial. |
| Harmless-error standard applied to causation instruction | Given trial focus on motive, error cannot be regarded as harmless. | The government argued the error was harmless since other evidence supported conviction. | Error not harmless; convictions reversed and remanded. |
| Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial | If insufficient evidence on the causation element, retrial should be barred. | Retrial permitted if evidence supports at least one theory of motive. | Court remanded for retrial consistent with correct causation standard; not barred by Double Jeopardy. |
| Sufficiency challenges to specific elements (bodily injury, aiding and abetting, conspiracy) | Evidence supported underlying acts and conspiratorial agreement. | Some elements might be insufficient under proper causation. | Not needed to decide given remand for new trial on correct causation standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (U.S. 2014) (but-for causation required for ‘because of’ in criminal statutes)
- United States v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (strict causation standards for motive; civil context cited)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation in civil ADEA context; supports causation standard)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error standard; record must show no impact on verdict)
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969) (harmless-error analysis in Confrontation Clause context; distinguishes context)