United States v. Thomas Cornelius, Jr.
693 F. App'x 604
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Thomas Cornelius, Jr. convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and for assaults committed in prison on July 5, 2012, and August 18, 2013; appeals consolidated.
- Traffic stop on May 3, 2011: Trooper Gardiner stopped Cornelius’s car, suspected speed racing, and detained Cornelius while administering sobriety tests to occupant Holm; evidence found in the car was used against Cornelius.
- Cornelius moved to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop and later sought to reopen the suppression ruling based on a newly-discovered video clip.
- At trial, jury heard evidence that revealed a prior conviction; Cornelius moved for a mistrial claiming prejudice.
- Sentencing: district court applied a two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement (USSG § 3A1.1(b)(1)) for one assault and a three-level enhancement for injury severity (USSG § 2A2.1(b)(1)(C)) for another; court combined offense levels under USSG § 3D1.4.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed on all counts, finding suppression denial proper, reopening and mistrial denials not an abuse, one sentencing enhancement erroneous but harmless, and the injury enhancement appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether traffic stop detention and search should be suppressed because stop was unreasonably prolonged | Cornelius: Trooper unreasonably prolonged stop by waiting to release him until she tested Holm, rendering search unconstitutional | Govt: Trooper had reasonable suspicion of speed racing and lack of lawful possession, so detention to test Holm was justified | Denied: detention reasonable; suppression properly denied |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to reopen suppression motion based on newly-discovered video | Cornelius: new video would affect suppression ruling and warranted reopening | Govt: video would not change reasonable-suspicion conclusion; Cornelius had access earlier | Denied: reopening not warranted; no showing video unavailable earlier |
| Whether mistrial was required after jury learned of prior conviction | Cornelius: disclosure of prior conviction prejudiced jury, requiring mistrial | Govt: evidence did not prevent impartial verdict | Denied: no prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentencing enhancements were proper: (a) two-level vulnerable-victim, (b) three-level injury severity | Cornelius: vulnerable-victim enhancement improper because victim not unusually unable to resist; injury enhancement excessive | Govt: victim was confined and injured severely; enhancements appropriate | (a) Vulnerable-victim enhancement applied in error but harmless because combined offense level unaffected; (b) Injury enhancement affirmed as injuries were between serious and life-threatening |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mayo, 394 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2005) (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory detention during traffic stops)
- Frederick S. Wyle Prof’l Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1985) (standard for reopening proceedings for newly discovered evidence)
- United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) (mistrial prejudice analysis for disclosure of prior conviction)
- United States v. Castaneda, 239 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable-victim enhancement requires victim to be less able to resist than typical)
- United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless-error analysis for sentencing guideline errors)
- United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 1994) (measurement of injury severity for enhancement under assault guidelines)