United States v. Jason Bower, No. 10-2599 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of four counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d) and four counts of carrying and using a firearm in relation to, and possessing a firearm during and in furtherance of, a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that appellant used genuine firearms; whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a new trial; whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain expert testimony; and whether the sentence enhancement based on prior convictions was proper in light of United States v. O'Brien. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant used real guns during his last three robberies and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial where the evidence was not so heavily against the verdicts that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred. The court also held that allowing certain expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion where the testimony was fundamentally supported and useful to the jury. The court further held that the district court did not violate O'Brien by sentencing appellant for multiple convictions where the section 924(c)(1)(i) enhancement could be based on successive convictions charged in the same indictment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to show defendant used real firearms during the bank robberies; no error in permitting an FBI agent to testify that metal shards found at one of the scenes were consistent with bullet fragments as that evidence went to the issue of whether a real firearm was used; sentencing defendant for multiple convictions did not violate United States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169 (2010).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.