United States v. Jones, No. 17-2944 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of interference with commerce by threat or violence (Hobbs Act robbery), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, or plainly err in omitting a curative instruction, where the answer of the government's witness to a question on cross-examination was not so unresponsive as to warrant a mistrial. Furthermore, the witness's remark was only a small part of the evidence against defendant. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in declining to grant a judgment of acquittal, because Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as crime of violence predicate under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A), and Session v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), did not change this.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The government witness's answer to a question posed on cross-examination was not so unresponsive as to warrant a mistrial or a sua sponte curative instruction; further, the remark was only a small part of the overwhelming evidence against defendant; under circuit precedent, a Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as crime of violence predicate under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(A), and this has not been changed by Session v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018).
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.