United States v. Marlon Iron Crow, No. 19-2304 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in denying the Batson challenge where the reason proffered for the challenged strike was that the juror appeared disinterested and was very hard to engage; the district court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and allowing each side an opportunity to explore the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation; the district court did not err when it denied defendant's claim based on the elicitation of false testimony; even if the prosecutor acted improperly at trial, the court cannot find that these actions—considered separately or together—prejudiced defendant to such an extent as to render his trial fundamentally unfair; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; and defendant's 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Batson claim rejected; the district court properly handled defendant's claim the government intimidated a witness by allowing each side an opportunity to explore the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation; claim the government solicited false testimony rejected; claim the government made improper comments about mens rea and asked leading questions rejected as the district court as the court addressed the issue by sustaining objections and giving a forceful curative instruction; in any event, defendant failed to show how the government's actions made his trial fundamentally unfair; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for second-degree murder; defendant's within-guidelines range sentence was substantively reasonable.
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.