United States v. Tyree Washington
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9473
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Washington is charged in a three-count carjacking series arising from March 2010 incidents.
- Victims Nesbitt family and Carla Perry were coerced at gunpoint; one carjacking included gunfire at Czerwinski in the arm.
- A photo array five months later led Nesbitt to identify Washington as the shooter; suppression motion followed.
- At trial, Washington challenged sufficiency of evidence for counts involving the Nesbitts and Perry.
- During sentencing, the government sought § 924(c) ordering by commission sequence, resulting in a sixty-year mandatory minimum.
- The district court order on § 924(c) was later remanded for recalculation; overall judgments on suppression and acquittal were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the photo array was unnecessarily suggestive | Washington argues the array was unduly suggestive due to skin-tone distinctions. | Washington contends identification was unreliable because of faulty procedures. | Identification not unduly suggestive; suppression denied. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of specific intent under § 2119 for the Nesbitts and Perry | Government contends brandishing plus and loaded-firearm evidence satisfy intent. | Washington asserts no proof of intent to kill or seriously harm for two of the carjackings. | There was sufficient evidence of specific intent for each carjacking. |
| How to order multiple § 924(c) convictions when arising from same indictment | Government argues district court may order convictions any way; could affect sentence length. | Washington contends ordering method may alter penalties; lenity should control. | § 924(c) ambiguous; rule of lenity applies; remand for appropriate ordering in defendant's favor. |
| Whether the district court erred by denying judgment of acquittal on counts four and seven | Prosecution asserts sufficient evidence for all § 2119 counts. | Washington claims insufficient evidence for specific-intent element on those counts. | District court denial affirmed; substantial evidence supports convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2005) (two-step analysis for identification admissibility; not unduly suggestive)
- United States v. Meyer, 359 F.3d 820 (6th Cir. 2004) (unreliability assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (intent element requires more than mere brandishing)
- United States v. Fekete, 535 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2008) (brandishing-plus may satisfy specific-intent element)
- United States v. Adams, 265 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2001) (touching a victim with a weapon supports intent to act violently)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 1993) (definition of 'second or subsequent conviction' under § 924(c))
- United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2012) (concerns ordering of § 924(c) convictions amid multiple counts)
- United States v. Ehle, 640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2011) (lenity applying to ambiguous sentencing provisions)