United States v. Scott, No. 15-3461 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was found guilty of all nine counts of a federal indictment. Defendant's charges stemmed from his involvement in two carjackings. The court concluded that defendant failed to address whether the photographic lineup was suggestive and unnecessary; the Sixth Amendment did not forbid law enforcement from questioning him on the carjackings; the court rejected defendant's argument that there is insufficient proof to sustain the gun-related convictions; and there was sufficient evidence to establish that he participated in the carjackings. The court also concluded that defendant's 768 month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment where the district court considered the physically threatening nature of his crimes, the use of deadly weapons in committing the crimes, and his degree of involvement in the crimes all negate an inference of gross disproportionality. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and defendant does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Gruender, Circuit Judge, and Ketchmark, District Judge] Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. In challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of carjacking offense, evidence rationally supports finding that Scott was accomplice, the identification evidence from the photographic lineup did not violate due process, and his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by questions by law enforcement officials for uncharged conduct. Based on the mandatory sentences to be served consecutively for violation of section 924(c) convictions, and the two armed carjackings which placed three individuals in fear of their lives, the 768-month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The portion of sentences mandated by section 924(c) is not subject to reasonableness review. Scott has not demonstrated the district court abused its discretion.
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.