United States v. Shaw, 758 F.3d 1187

Shaw was convicted in the District of Kansas of robbing a bank and two credit unions, attempting to rob a third credit union, and four firearms offenses; he was acquitted of a second bank robbery.
Evidence at trial included cell-phone location data, Beadles’s redacted confession, and Rudisill’s testimony regarding Shaw’s involvement.
Beadles, a codefendant who testified via redacted confession, had been convicted at a separate trial; the confession was introduced with a neutral pronoun replacement.
Rudisill acted as an informant and provided information about Shaw in exchange for leniency; his testimony linked Shaw to multiple robberies.
Cell-phone tracking placed Shaw’s phones near crime scenes and times, supporting involvement in several robberies.
The district court admitted limited evidence of a March 18, 2011 uncharged robbery as background; Shaw challenged the admission at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror impartiality and mistrial	Shaw argues juror bias from the gesture tainted panel.	Shaw contends mistrial or removal warranted due to bias.	No abuse; juror 76 later rehabilitated and could be impartial.
Confrontation Clause and Beadles confession	Beadles’s confession was testimonial and inadmissible against Shaw.	Redacted confession could be admissible against Shaw via Bruton framework.	Admitting the redacted confession was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Uncharged bank robbery evidence	March 2011 robbery evidence provided context and linkage to charged offenses.	Evidence had insufficient relevance and should have been excluded.	Admission harmless; did not substantially influence the outcome.
Sentencing—prior conviction findings	Prior conviction status used to enhance § 924(c) sentences must be alleged and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.	The existence of prior convictions can be decided by the judge under Almendarez-Torres.	Authority supports judicially found prior conviction; sentence affirmed.

United States v. Lawrence, 405 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2005) (test for bias and abuse of discretion in mistrial/voir dire)
United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2013) (juror dismissal standards on appeal)
United States v. Hueftle, 687 F.2d 1305 (10th Cir. 1982) (impartiality after potentially prejudicial information)
United States v. Evans, 542 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1976) (impartiality and voir dire considerations)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction of joint-confession evidence in Bruton context)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (prohibition on using codefendant confessions against a codefendant in joint trials)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
United States v. Chavez, 481 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2007) (harmless error standard for Confrontation Clause violations)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior-conviction exception to jury-findings for enhanced sentences)
United States v. Green, 115 F.3d 1479 (10th Cir. 1997) (Bruton-related redaction in joint trials)