USA v., Alexander McQueen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17581
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- On Feb. 25, 2009, corrections officers at South Florida Reception Center (including Sgt. Alexander McQueen and Officer Steven Dawkins) participated in or witnessed violent beatings of youthful offenders and then filed reports that downplayed or concealed the abuse.
- McQueen was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to deprive inmates of their Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment (18 U.S.C. § 241) and of obstructing justice by filing a false report (18 U.S.C. § 1519). Dawkins was acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of obstructing justice under § 1519.
- At trial the court used two petit juries so McQueen and Dawkins did not hear certain Rule 404(b) evidence introduced against co-defendants; Griffin and Butler’s conduct (e.g., organizing inmate fights, carrying broomsticks as weapons) was presented to the other jury.
- Defendants challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for the § 1519 convictions (arguing § 1519 requires knowledge of a federal investigation), (2) sufficiency of evidence for McQueen’s conspiracy (§ 241), (3) certain jury instructions and exclusion of requested defenses, and (4) improper bolstering of a witness by the prosecutor.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions: it held § 1519 does not require knowledge that the matter is federal, the evidence supported the § 241 conspiracy, and trial rulings were not reversible error. The court vacated and remanded both sentences as substantively unreasonable given massive downward variances (over 90%) from the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1519 requires knowledge that an investigation is federal | Govt: Mens rea applies to falsification acts only; jurisdictional element needs no mens rea | McQueen/Dawkins: § 1519 requires intent to obstruct an actual or contemplated federal investigation | Held for Govt: "knowingly" modifies the verbs; knowledge of federal nature is jurisdictional only and not a mens rea element |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 241 | Govt: Circumstantial evidence showed agreement and overt acts (joint beatings, sanctioning fights, concealment) | McQueen: No proof of an agreement or knowing participation in a conspiracy | Held for Govt: Evidence viewed favorably to verdict supported a single conspiracy and McQueen’s knowing participation |
| Jury instructions & refused defense instructions (accomplice/immunized witness; multiple conspiracies) | Defendants: Court should have given requested instructions to reflect defenses | Govt: No evidence showed witnesses were accomplices/immunized or that multiple conspiracies existed | Held for Govt: No abuse of discretion; insufficient evidence to support requested instructions |
| Prosecutorial bolstering of witness (Rolle) | Defendants: Prosecutor vouched for witness credibility via polygraph mention | Govt: Questioning merely explored why witness changed her account; no improper vouching | Held for Govt: Not reversible; any error harmless given cumulative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional elements need not have mens rea)
- United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2012) ("knowingly" in § 1519 modifies falsification verbs; federal-knowledge not required)
- United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (approving jury instruction that knowledge of federal jurisdiction is not required under § 1519)
- United States v. Gray, 642 F.3d 371 (2d Cir. 2011) (same interpretation of § 1519 mens rea)
- United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012) (same conclusion on § 1519)
- United States v. Fontenot, 611 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (observations on § 1519 legislative purpose and sentencing relevance)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review standard for substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (standards for assessing substantial variances and reasonableness)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate review of sentencing discretion and § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966) (historical importance of § 241 in protecting federal rights)