United States v. Red Cloud, No. 19-1210 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Red Cloud’s son, D.K.E., was born on August 20, 2014. Red Cloud was 20 years old; D.K.E.’s mother, J.K.E., was 15. On October 11, the baby was found not breathing. The autopsy reported the cause of death as emaciation/dehydration. Red Cloud pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. 1111(a) and 1153. The PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 210-262 months’ incarceration. Neither party objected.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed his sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release as not substantively unreasonable. The district court analyzed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors to justify the extent of the variance. The court properly considered an expert’s forensic interview of Red Cloud, indicating he has significant cognitive impairments that affected his ability to properly care for a newborn child and concluded that, on these facts, the need for additional deterrence was not “significant.” The district court noted that Red Cloud needed “support and help” going forward—not solely punishment for his role in the death of D.K.E. The court also noted Red Cloud had a history with substance abuse and imposed the term of supervised release in part so he could receive the resources to address his chemical dependency issues. The court expressly sought to balance the seriousness of the offense with Red Cloud’s specific personal history, characteristics, and limitations.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The government appeals defendant's below-guidelines sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 3553(a) factors or in imposing the below-guidelines sentence; a variance of the magnitude granted here requires serious consideration by the district court, and it is evident from the sentencing record that the district court gave the matter the serious consideration it required.
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.