FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 27, 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross- Appellant,
of 31
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 27, 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross- Appellant, v. No & CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee. (D.C. No. 6:13-CR RAW-2) (E. D. Okla.) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross- Appellant, v. No & RAYMOND A. BARNES, Defendant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee. (D.C. No. 6:13-CR RAW-1) (E. D. Okla.) ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P and 10th Cir. R Raymond Barnes, former Jail Superintendent of the Muskogee County Jail (MCJ), appeals his conviction of conspiring to deprive inmates of the free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, and also willfully depriving inmates of their right, protected and secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of 18 U.S.C ROA Vol. I at 32, 35. Christopher Brown, former Assistant Jail Superintendent, was convicted of the same crimes, as well as making a false statement to a federal agent in violation of 18 U.S.C Defendants appeal their convictions, challenging the admissibility of certain evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and certain jury instructions. On crossappeal, the government challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of Defendants sentences. We affirm Defendants convictions, vacate their sentences for procedural unreasonableness, and remand for resentencing. I Background After an investigation into allegations that inmates were being physically abused at MCJ, Defendants were charged in a four count indictment. Count 1 charged both Defendants with conspiring to specifically deprive inmates of their right to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of 18 U.S.C The indictment alleged that Defendants directly assaulted inmates, ordered subordinates to assault inmates, threatened to fire subordinates who reported abuse, required subordinates 2 to falsify use-of-force reports, and generally cultivated an abusive environment at MCJ. The indictment further described seven overt acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy: four Meet and Greets orchestrated by Defendants at MCJ, wherein inmates transferred from other counties were thrown to the ground while in restraints, although the inmates posed no physical threat, as well as three other incidents of Defendants directly abusing inmates. Counts 2 and 3 charged both Defendants with depriving two inmates, Jace Rice and Gary Torix, of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by orchestrating violent Meet and Greets when they were transferred to MCJ, in violation of 18 U.S.C Count 4 charged Brown with making a false statement to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, by stating that inmates were gently placed on the ground during Meet and Greets. A. Meet and Greets During Defendants week-long joint trial, the government called nineteen witnesses, and Defendants called none. The testimony focused primarily on the four Meet and Greets alleged in the indictment. Evidence of the first two Meet and Greets support the substantive counts; all four support the conspiracy counts. 1. Jace Rice (Counts 1 and 2) Prior to the arrival of Jace Rice, Barnes instructed two jailers to pull Rice out of the van and ensure that the first thing that touched the ground [was] his head. ROA Vol. II at After the van arrived at MCJ, Rice was described as calm and had a belly chain around his waist, which went through his handcuffs and connected to shackles 3 on his ankles. Id. at 1360, Rice was forcibly removed from the van and, unable to brace himself due to the restraints, landed head-first on the concrete after falling roughly five feet. Two jailers testified that when Rice s head hit the concrete [i]t sounded like a watermelon hitting the ground. Id. at 1361, Three to ten officers then piled on top of Rice. They began pulling and twisting him allegedly for the purpose of removing the restraints which belonged to the transferring facility, and replacing them with MCJ restraints. Id. at 1364, 1446, Once the restraints were switched out, Rice was picked up and carried into the jail, [p]arallel to the floor, like a ladder, face down, feet first. Id. at 1367, 1448, Barnes then welcomed Rice to MCJ and warned Rice that if he acts up, what just happened to [him] will happen to [him] again or even worse. Id. at Rice had a knot, a cut and/or a red bump on his head after the Meet and Greet. Id. at 1369, 1451, Brown was present at this Meet and Greet. 2. Gary Torix (Counts 1 and 3) Prior to the arrival of Gary Torix, Barnes gathered several jail employees to tell them they had an inmate coming in from Cherokee County who was one of the bad boys, that they were going to show him how things were run in Muskogee County, and that the inmate had staples in his head from a prior injury. Id. at Torix was calm and in shackles and handcuffs when he arrived. Id. at 1373, It is unclear whether Torix stepped out of the vehicle by himself or if he was removed from it, but he was ultimately forced face-first to the ground, which was part concrete and part gravel. After hitting the ground, Torix s head was bleeding, and he was screaming and 4 thrashing around. Id. at 1537, As many as fifteen people piled on top of him to switch out his restraints. Torix was then carried face-down into the jail, where Barnes introduced himself and informed Torix that he (Barnes) run[s] this jail and that [i]f [Torix] gives [MCJ officers] any problems, what just happened will happen or possibly even worse. Id. at 1376, An hour after booking Torix, medical staff went to check on him: he was still bleeding from his prior larceration, which had reopened, his glasses were scuffed, and he had road rash on his forehead. Id. at Herbert Potts and Riley Starr (Count 1) In support of the conspiracy charge, witnesses testified that Meet and Greets of two other inmates, Herbert Potts and Riley Starr, followed the same general pattern as those experienced by Rice and Torix. Starr s Meet and Greet was unique in one way: his head also hit the door as he was being carried into the jail. Brown was not only present at both Meet and Greets, but one witness testified that Brown personally grabbed Potts and pulled him to the concrete face-first. B. Other Instances of Abuse (Count 1) On one occasion when several inmates were lined up outside the medical office, Barnes was asked to come to the area. The jailer who asked that Barnes be called did not testify at trial, but it appears that he believed an inmate was being too loud. When Barnes entered the area, with Brown right behind him, he was visibly upset: He was bowed up a little and his fists were clenched. Id. at Without asking who was causing the reported disruption, he immediately approached Jeremy Armstead, who had done nothing 5 wrong. Barnes grabbed Armstead by his shirt collar and either pushed him against a wall or shoved his head down under his arm. Defendants then restrained Armstead and took him to a cell where they placed a helmet on him and made him sit for almost two hours. Armstead suffered a shoulder injury as a result. On a different occasion, an inmate named Alton Murphy got mouthy but not combative when Barnes told him to lock down. Id. at When Murphy refused to lock down, things got physical. According to one witness s testimony, Barnes snuck up behind Murphy and put [Barnes s] arms through [Murphy s] arms and around his head, like a full nelson. Id. at They fell backward with Murphy landing on top of Barnes, Brown jumped on top of Murphy, and another guard sprayed everybody with pepperspray. Id. at According to a different witness, Barnes and Brown both approached Murphy and hit him simultaneously[: Barnes] hit him on top, [Brown] went and hit him under the legs, and he went to the ground. Id. at C. Attempts to Cover Up the Abuse (Count 1) Several former and current employees of MCJ testified that they were afraid that Barnes and Brown would retaliate against them if they reported the inmate abuse. One 1 The final incident alleged in the indictment as an overt act taken in furtherance of the conspiracy involved Barnes and Brown [striking] and beat[ing] an unidentified inmate who was restrained in a cell in the detox area and not posing a physical threat to anyone. ROA Vol. I at 34. A former jailer, Ashley Mullen, testified about this incident at trial. Finding that Mullen s testimony regarding this incident was so amorphous that its its probative value is substantially outweighed [by] the unfair prejudice that it could have on the jury, ROA Vol. II at 2258, the district court instructed the jury to disregard her testimony concerning this unidentified inmate. 6 jailer testified that Barnes made her fix reports that used language that was too vivid in describing the force used, id. at 1804, while several others testified that they reported incidents with such mild language that they felt the reports were inaccurate. Another jailer testified that her shift was twice changed within two days of submitting accurate (but damning) reports. The shift changes were problematic for her because the revised schedules disrupted her child care arrangements. Barnes changed her shift the first time, Brown did so the second time. D. Brown s Interview with the FBI (Count 4) Brown was also charged with making a false statement to FBI Agent Jennifer Chapman. Agent Chapman testified that she asked Brown about Meet and Greets, which he described as when there was an inmate that was out of control at another facility that was going to come and stay at Muskogee County for a period of time. The inmate would come in... a police car..., pull into the sally port. They were asked to... step out of the vehicle first. And once the inmate stepped out, they d be asked to get on the ground. ROA Vol. II at She further testified that Brown told her that if the inmate didn t comply, [MCJ officers] would gently place the inmate onto the ground. Id. at When she questioned Brown about his use of the phrase gently placed, he stood by his description. E. Procedural History At the close of the government s case, Barnes moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. The jury returned a verdict finding both defendants guilty 7 of Count 1 (conspiracy), and Count 2 (Jace Rice s Meet and Greet ). The jury also found Barnes guilty of Count 3 (Gary Torix s Meet and Greet ), and found Brown guilty of Count 4 (false statement). Both Defendants subsequently filed motions for judgment of acquittal and motions for new trial, which the district court also denied. At sentencing, both Defendants sought a downward variance, and specifically requested only supervised release. The court granted downward variances, though not to the extent requested. Although the applicable Guidelines range for each Defendant was months, the court sentenced Barnes to twelve months imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release, and Brown to six months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Defendants appeal their convictions. The government cross-appeals, challenging the reasonableness of Defendants sentences. II Defendants Appeals of Their Convictions Defendants challenge the admissibility of certain evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole, and specific jury instructions. We address each challenge in turn, ultimately concluding that Defendants convictions should be affirmed. A. Admissibility of Testimony Regarding Use-of-Force Training Defendants challenge various testimony involving use-of-force training provided to jailers at MCJ. Both argue that although George Roberson, a captain with the Muskogee County Sheriff s Department, testified as an expert, the heightened requirements for expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 were ignored. 8 Brown challenges not only Roberson s testimony on this ground, but also the testimony of various jailers. Brown further argues that the jailers testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403. We review the district court s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, but review the district court s interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence de novo. United States v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079, 1088 (10th Cir. 2012). Applying this standard, we conclude the district court did not err in admitting the testimony regarding use-of-force training. 1. Rule 702 Challenges Federal Rule of Evidence 701 sets the boundaries for lay-witness testimony: it must be (a) rationally based on the witness s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid Expert testimony must meet the heightened requirements of Rule 702. See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702. Expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data and the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert [must have] reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid We consider four factors in determining whether the testimony at issue is lay witness testimony or is, in fact, expert testimony offered as lay testimony. First, we consider whether the testimony meets the requirements of Rule 701 set forth above. James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011). Second, we consider whether the testimony was based on professional experience. Id. at 9 1215. Lay witness testimony can rely on a limited amount of expertise, so long as the opinions or inferences... could be reached by any ordinary person. Id. at 1214 (quoting United States v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 1995), and then quoting LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 929 (10th Cir. 2004)). A witness who possesses scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge can testify as a lay witness so long as the testimony is not based on such knowledge. See, e.g., Ryan Dev. Co. v. Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 711 F.3d 1165, 1170 (10th Cir. 2013) (permitting accountants, who often testify as expert witnesses, to testify as lay witnesses where their testimony involved only basic arithmetic and was based on their personal experience providing services to defendant); Orr, 692 F.3d at (permitting scientists, previously hired by defendant, to testify as lay witnesses regarding the parameters of their duties and what they reported to defendant, avoiding technical evaluation of the project). Third, we consider whether the expert relied on a technical report by an outside expert. James River, 658 F.3d at Finally, we consider how the Federal Rules of Evidence generally classify the testimony at issue. Id. a. Roberson s Testimony Roberson testified that he taught use of force at jail school, which was sometimes attended by Defendants. ROA Vol. II at He testified that he taught jailers that they could use force if an inmate was a threat to them [or] aggressive toward them, and that the overall goal in using force was [t]o control the situation, deescalate it, thus reducing the odds that someone is going to get hurt. Id. at He 10 also testified about a conversation he had with Barnes. According to Roberson s testimony, Barnes told the employees or the detention officers that if an inmate is in their... personal space,... they can strike the inmate. Id. at Roberson then informed Barnes that force would not be necessary or helpful in that situation and would only cause the situation to escalate. Barnes responded by shrugging his shoulders and walking away. Roberson then informed Barnes that if [use of force] was taught that way,... that man in the black suit was going to come knocking on your door. And I don t mean the preacher, I m talking about the FBI. Id. at Defendants did not object to this testimony at trial. The only objection they made was to the use of hypothetical questions during Roberson s testimony. Id. at 750. When [t]he specific ground for reversal of [the] evidentiary ruling on appeal is not the same as that raised at trial, we review this challenge only for plain error. United States v. Ramirez, 348 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Norman T., 129 F.3d 1099, 1106 (10th Cir. 1997)). Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Hill, 749 F.3d 1250, (10th Cir. 2014). Applying the only relevant James River factors discussed supra, 2 we conclude that the district court did not err, or at least did not plainly err. First, the testimony meets the 2 The last two factors are not helpful in deciding this case: Roberson did not rely on an outside expert report and there is no standard classification in the Federal Rules of Evidence for this type of testimony. Cf. James River, 658 F.3d at requirements of Rule 701: (1) Roberson had personal knowledge of his training of jailers regarding their use of force, and specifically of his conversation with Barnes; (2) his testimony was helpful in determining whether Defendants acted willfully, see United States v. Rodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015) (concluding that evidence of the official training the defendant received was relevant to show willfulness), petition for cert. filed, Rodella v. United States, No (Mar. 16, 2016), and willfulness was an element of Counts 2 and 3 alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. 242; and (3) his testimony was not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Second, although Roberson s testimony addressed facts known to him as a result of his work experience, it nonetheless was not based on technical or scientific knowledge. Although Roberson, as a captain in the Muskogee County Sheriff s Department, arguably had specialized knowledge regarding the appropriate use of force, he did not offer an opinion based on that knowledge. Instead, he simply related to the jury two experiences he had while working as a captain in the Muskogee County Sheriff s Department. His testimony was not admitted to establish what level of force is constitutionally permissible (as Defendants contend); it was admitted to show Defendants willfulness. Cf. Orr, 692 F.3d at 1090 (considering the purpose of testimony in determining whether witness testimony was based on specialized training and experience). The fact that Defendants were present during some of Roberson s training sessions, and that Barnes and Roberson had the conversation detailed above, shows that Defendants were aware that official protocol limited the use of force to instances when an inmate was acting in a threatening 12 manner. That Defendants disregarded their training on the appropriate use of force is admissible to show that Defendants acted willfully. See Rodella, 804 F.3d at b. Jailer Testimony The government also called several current and former MCJ jailers to testify. The gist of their testimony was that (1) they attended the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), a 90-day police training course that discussed the use of force; (2) CLEET taught them to use force only if an inmate poses a threat to safety, and that inmates in restraints pose no such threat; (3) the inmates involved in the Meet and Greets at issue in this case were in restraints; and accordingly (4) these Meet and Greets were contrary to their training. Brown argues that t
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks