United States v. Mueller; United States v. Kornhardt, No. 10-3159 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Steven Mueller challenged his convictions on conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and murder-for-hire. Defendant James Kornhardt challenged his convictions on conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, murder-for-hire, and obstruction of justice. The court held that because the murder-for-hire crime was not completed prior to the amendment of 18 U.S.C. 1958(a) going into effect on September, 13, 1994, there was no ex post facto violation. As for the conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire charges, because some of defendants' acts involved interstate commerce facilities that occurred after September 13, 1994, there was no ex post facto clause violation. The government conceded, however, that the trial court should have instructed the jury to only consider the use of the mails or of interstate commerce facilities occurring on or after September 13, 1994. The court held that this error was harmless. The court further held that defendants failed to demonstrate any real prejudice stemming from the trial court's denial of their motions for severance; the admission of Mueller's confession to an agent did not violate Kornhardt's confrontation clause rights under Bruton v. United States; the admission of Mueller's grand jury testimony was harmless error; the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment; Mueller failed to demonstrate that the alleged plain error by the prosecutor's misconduct affected his substantial rights; Mueller was competent to stand trial and the trial court did not fail to adequately inquire into his competency; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Mueller of the crimes charged against him. Accordingly, the court affirmed on all accounts.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction. Murder for hire and conspiracy to murder for hire charges were not subject to statute of limitations and did not violate the ex post facto clause, as conduct essential to proving murder- for-hire scheme occurred after amendment to section 1958(a) took effect and trial court's error in omitting from jury instruction that the jury should consider only events occurring after 1994 was harmless. No prejudice stemming from district court's denial of motion for severance was shown. Kornhardt's Bruton claims failed and constituted harmless error. District court did not err in denying Mueller's motion to dismiss the indictment; Mueller did not demonstrate plain error by prosecutor's misconduct; sufficient evidence supported trial court's determination that Mueller was competent and Mueller was not denied due process in that determination. Sufficient evidence supported jury verdict.
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.