United States v. Shawn Brooks, No. 19-1790 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conspiracy, robbery, and firearms convictions.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1790 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Shawn Thomas Brooks, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: May 15, 2020 Filed: August 4, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury convicted Shawn Brooks on several charges arising from a series of armed robberies in Lincoln, Nebraska. The jury found Brooks guilty on five counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), and one count of bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The jury also found Brooks guilty on three counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 480 months in prison. Brooks appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. Brooks preserved his sufficiency argument in the district court by moving for judgment of acquittal. We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo and will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2019); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Brooks argues that there was a “lack of evidence directly implicating” him in the crimes. We disagree. A witness for the prosecution testified that he and Brooks committed the robberies together and specifically identified Brooks as a participant in each robbery. The witness also testified that Brooks carried a firearm during three of the robberies and that Brooks fired the weapon during one. Employees of two convenience stores that were robbed testified that the taller perpetrator pointed a firearm at the witnesses during the robberies. Brooks argues that the principal witness’s testimony was not credible because it was internally inconsistent and because the witness acknowledged that he testified in hopes of receiving favorable treatment in his own criminal case. But a jury’s credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable, because the jury is in the best position to assess the truthfulness of the witnesses and to resolve any inconsistent testimony. United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2010). The testimony 1 The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. -2- of the witnesses here, if believed, was sufficient to support a reasonable finding that Brooks was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the several charged offenses. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
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.
