United States v. Schropp, No. 15-2115 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was convicted as a principle for arson of a building used in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i) ("Count I"); mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 ("Count II"); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 ("Counts III–V"); and arson in connection with a
federal felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(h) ("Count VI"). The district court sentenced defendant to five terms of imprisonment of 70 months on Counts I–V, to run concurrently, and one term of imprisonment of 120 months on Count VI, to run consecutive to the 70-month terms. Defendant appealed. The court declined to review defendant's Double Jeopardy Clause claim because he failed to show good cause for his untimely motion; any error in admitting the photographs at issue is harmless where the photographs had little or no influence on the verdict and thus did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial where there was no reversible error as to defendant's alleged jury-instruction error; and there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and Gritzner, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's case was pending when amended criminal rules took effect, and under new Rule 12, his assertion of a double-jeopardy defense was untimely; his challenge can only be reviewed if he shows good cause, and his brief makes no attempt to show good cause and the issue will not be reviewed; while certain photos were improperly admitted because the government failed to show they accurately depicted the scene at the relevant time, the admission of the photos was harmless error; no error in denying defendant's motion for a new trial which was based on claims that two witnesses were not credible and that the court made an error, which it quickly corrected, in instructing the jury that a witness faced no mandatory minimum imprisonment due to his cooperation; evidence was sufficient to prove all counts in this arson and fraud prosecution.
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.