United States v. Waits, No. 17-3399 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Waits and Mills appealed their convictions and sentences for wire fraud related to their involvement with government feeding programs to children in low income areas. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendants' proffered jury instructions; the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recording of a conversation between Waits and a coconspirator; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Waits' motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in calculating Waits' criminal history score and in sentencing him. However, the court vacated and remanded the forfeiture order against Waits, because the order was based on the incorrect statute.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Beam and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In this fraud prosecution, the district court did not err in rejecting defendants' proposed theory-of-defense instructions because the instructions given adequately covered the law; nor did the court plainly err in refusing to given an instruction on the testimony of an accomplice or the credibility of a cooperating witness as the court gave a general instruction on evaluating witness credibility; no error in admitting recording between defendants Waits and a co-conspirator as the threats against witnesses contained in the recording were admissible to show Waits's consciousness of guilt; district court properly evaluated motion for new trial based on prejudicial publicity and did not err in ruling on the motion without a hearing; in determining defendant Waits's sentence, the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; the district court properly calculated Waits's criminal history score and did not err in imposing a point for a revocation of probation or in treating prior sentences imposed on the same day as separate offenses where there was an intervening arrest; forfeiture order was based on the incorrect statute, and the forfeiture order is vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
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.