United States v. Travis Hewitt, 999 F.3d 1141

In July 2015 James Ramirez, a pretrial detainee experiencing alcohol withdrawal, was housed in the Jackson County Detention Center medical unit and was confused and disoriented.
On July 4 officers responded to a “code one” after Ramirez attempted to leave; Hewitt and Pearce were involved in an initial struggle in the medical unit in which multiple officers struck Ramirez.
Later that night officers (Pulos, Dooley, Pearce, and Hewitt) removed Ramirez to a second-floor holding cell without cameras and, according to testimony, jointly assaulted him; Ramirez suffered severe blunt-force injuries (rib and spine fractures, pneumothorax, pulmonary contusion, wrist fracture, facial contusions).
Hewitt allegedly threatened coconspirators to keep quiet after the incident. Pulos and Pearce pleaded guilty to some counts; Hewitt and Dooley were tried.
A jury convicted Hewitt of (1) conspiracy to deprive Ramirez of civil rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and (2) deprivation of civil rights (18 U.S.C. § 242), acquitting him on two other counts. The district court imposed a downward-variance sentence of 45 months. Hewitt appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 241 conspiracy	Gov’t: Circumstantial proof of an agreement—shared motive, joint action, exclusion of bystanders, and a cover-up—supports conspiracy conviction	Hewitt: No proof of an agreement; actions were independent and lacked tacit understanding	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (motive, mutual knowledge/joint action, exclusion of bystanders, cover-up) supported a reasonable inference of agreement
Sufficiency of evidence for § 242 deprivation of rights	Gov’t: Hewitt willfully acted under color of law to inflict injury; co-defendants' testimony and evidence place him in the holding cell and participating in the assault	Hewitt: He did not participate in the second incident; badge-swipe log shows he left the second floor and thus could not have assaulted Ramirez	Affirmed — jury credited witness testimony over Hewitt’s badge-log/alibi; evidence supported participation and willfulness under color of law
Substantive reasonableness of 45-month sentence	Gov’t: Guidelines range supported and downward variance to 45 months was reasonable given facts and seriousness	Hewitt: Sentence excessive and disparate from Dooley’s (36 months); court relied improperly on acquitted conduct	Affirmed — district court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors, did not rely on acquitted conduct, and permissibly found Hewitt more culpable than Dooley

United States v. Reichel, 911 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
United States v. Nolen, 536 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2008) (tacit conspiratorial agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Davis, 810 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1987) (factors probative of conspiracy: common motive, mutual knowledge/joint action, exclusion of bystanders, cover-up)
United States v. Blakeney, 876 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2017) (elements of deprivation-of-rights offenses under color of law)
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (government must prove willfulness and action under color of law for § 242)
United States v. Harrison, 671 F.2d 1159 (8th Cir. 1982) (jury resolves credibility and factual conflicts; appellate courts accept reasonable inferences supporting the verdict)