United States v. Tremane D. Carthen
906 F.3d 1315
11th Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 a grand jury indicted Tremane Carthen, Scottie Groce, and Kevin Martin for three Hobbs Act robberies and related § 924(c) firearm offenses arising from July 2014 gas-station robberies. Martin later pled guilty and testified for the government in exchange for dismissal of several charges.
- Martin testified Groce planned and drove to the robberies, provided gloves, and gave Carthen a shotgun; Martin identified the defendants on security footage and described firearms-brandishing during the robberies.
- Witnesses (Marie and Michael Parker) placed Carthen near the Prattville robbery shortly after it occurred; officers recovered a hoodie, gloves, shotgun, cash, and cigarettes near the scene.
- Forensic DNA testing matched Carthen to the gloves and hoodie with a high degree of confidence.
- The jury convicted Carthen and Groce on all counts; district court denied acquittal/new-trial motions and imposed mandatory minimum sentences: one month on Hobbs Act counts and a consecutive 57 years for three § 924(c) brandishing convictions.
- On appeal the panel affirmed convictions and sentences, dismissed Carthen’s ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice under Patterson, and addressed evidentiary and Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support Carthen's convictions | Carthen: evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Government: Martin's testimony, eyewitness IDs, security footage, possessions, and DNA suffice | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of coconspirator hearsay (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) | Carthen: admission of Martin's recounting of statements was improper because insufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy | Government: independent evidence (pattern of robberies, hoodie on footage, eyewitness sightings, DNA) plus Martin’s statements satisfied Bourjaily standard | Affirmed — district court did not plainly err admitting coconspirator statements |
| Exclusion of Groce’s proposed impeachment witnesses (Rule 608(b)) | Groce: district court wrongly excluded witnesses who would show Martin had lied previously (bias/impeachment) | Government: testimony would have been used to show propensity to lie; Rule 608(b) bars extrinsic evidence to attack character for truthfulness; admissibility for other purposes not shown | Affirmed — exclusion was within district court’s discretion under Rule 608(b) and 403 considerations |
| Application and proportionality of § 924(c) mandatory minimums | Carthen: calculation of consecutive 25-year sentences for second/subsequent convictions erroneous because offenses arise from same incident; Groce: 57-year mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate under Eighth Amendment | Government: multiple § 924(c) counts in same indictment count as second/subsequent; precedent upholds heavy § 924(c) minimums even when far above guideline range | Affirmed — statutory calculation correct per precedent; Groce failed to show gross disproportionality (Bowers controlling) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (establishes that court may consider coconspirator statements along with independent evidence when determining admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Harris, 886 F.3d 1120 (Eleventh Circuit standards for proving conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341 (district court may rely on coconspirator statements and independent evidence to admit hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Wilk, 572 F.3d 1229 (discussion of district court discretion regarding impeachment evidence and Rule 608(b))
- United States v. Bowers, 811 F.3d 412 (upholding lengthy mandatory § 924(c) sentences; used to reject Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge)
- United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277 (earlier Eleventh Circuit precedent interpreting Rule 608(b) to restrict extrinsic impeachment evidence)
- United States v. McGill, 815 F.3d 846 (representative circuit authority holding Rule 608(b) does not bar impeachment by contradiction)