United States v. Matthew Moore

Citations: 708 F.3d 639; 2013 WL 512342; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2874Docket: 11-30877

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 11, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants Matthew Dean Moore and Melvin Williams, former New Orleans Police Officers, are appealing their convictions related to the death of Raymond Robair. Williams was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 by causing Robair’s death while depriving him of civil rights. Both defendants were convicted of aiding and abetting obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 for filing a false police report. Moore was additionally convicted of making a false statement to the FBI under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient for their convictions and challenge their sentences.

On July 30, 2005, while responding to an incident, Officer Williams and recruit Moore confronted Robair. Witnesses reported that after Moore subdued Robair, Williams kicked him and struck him with a metal baton while Robair was on the ground, restrained and not resisting. The officers transported Robair, who was unresponsive, to Charity Hospital, misrepresenting the circumstances of his condition. They left the hospital shortly after arrival but returned to claim they found crack cocaine in their vehicle. Medical staff, misled by the officers' accounts, initially treated Robair for a drug overdose, overlooking signs of trauma. Despite medical intervention for a heart attack and subsequent discovery of internal bleeding, Robair died due to a ruptured spleen, which was a result of the injuries inflicted by the officers. The appellate court affirmed the convictions.

Experts indicated that had the staff recognized Robair as a victim of blunt force trauma, he would have received different treatment, potentially leading to his survival. Two autopsies identified the cause of death as internal bleeding from a ruptured spleen. Dr. Sperry’s findings revealed that Robair had sustained significant force to the chest, resulting in broken ribs and a crushed spleen, with injuries consistent with a beating. He concluded the death was a homicide. 

On the day of Robair’s death, Officers Williams and Moore documented their encounter, categorizing it as a medical incident without mentioning any use of force. Their accounts during FBI interviews described Robair running toward their patrol car and falling after making evasive movements. Both officers denied using physical force against Robair. 

Following a jury trial, both officers were convicted on all charges, with the jury determining that Williams’ actions under Section 242 contributed to Robair's death. Motions for judgment of acquittal by the defendants were denied. Williams received a 262-month sentence for Count 1 and 240 months for Count 2, while Moore was sentenced to 70 months for Count 2 and 60 months for Count 3. Both defendants appealed their convictions.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard requires that a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal questions are reviewed de novo, and sentencing guidelines are examined for clear error with legal interpretations reviewed de novo. Williams challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction under Section 242, which requires proof that the defendant willfully deprived someone of a federal right under color of law, with severe penalties for violations resulting in bodily injury or death.

For Williams to face a longer sentence, the government needed to prove that his violation of Robair’s civil rights resulted in Robair's death, which the jury determined. Williams contends that the baton strikes he delivered only caused bruising and did not lead to death, thus questioning whether his kick could be deemed a cause of death. He presents alternative theories regarding the injury to Robair’s spleen, suggesting it could have resulted from a fall due to Moore's actions rather than his kick. Williams cites medical findings, noting discrepancies between initial x-rays and findings from the autopsy, arguing that Robair’s injuries likely occurred during treatment for a drug overdose and heart attack, as he survived for hours post-kick. He highlights Robair's pre-existing health conditions, arguing these undermined the jury's conclusion that his kick caused Robair's death. However, evidence supporting the jury’s verdict includes testimonies from four witnesses who observed the kick and medical testimony indicating that the spleen injury was caused by significant force, inconsistent with other theories. Dr. Sperry corroborated that the injuries could not have resulted from medical treatment and highlighted the possibility that the rib and spleen injuries occurred simultaneously. The jury's role in evaluating conflicting evidence is emphasized, with legal precedents affirming that the government must prove a proximate cause connecting the accused's actions to the victim's death. Consequently, the jury could reasonably conclude that Robair's death was a foreseeable outcome of Williams’ kick.

Moore contends that his sentence, which partly relies on Williams' conviction for voluntary manslaughter, is unjustified due to insufficient evidence supporting Williams' conviction. He claims the government improperly influenced the jury by introducing negative evidence about other NOPD officers. However, this evidence was presented during cross-examination in response to earlier defense testimony, and its brief nature rendered any error harmless. Moore also asserts the jury received inadequate instruction on the term 'foreseeable,' which he believes led to an erroneous conclusion regarding Williams' causation of Robair's death. The jury sought clarification on this term, but the district court declined to provide further instruction, a decision deemed appropriate given the term's common understanding. 

Williams argues that the district court incorrectly calculated his sentence by applying the offense level for voluntary manslaughter (29) instead of involuntary manslaughter (18). The court rejected his objection after a thorough discussion, determining that Williams exhibited intent to cause bodily harm, a necessary mental state for voluntary manslaughter. This conclusion was based on Williams' actions during the encounter with Robair and his subsequent misleading statements to hospital staff about the cause of Robair's injuries. The court found that Williams' conduct significantly deviated from reasonable care standards, indicating he was aware of the serious risk of bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of voluntary manslaughter guidelines for sentencing.

In United States v. Conaster, the Sixth Circuit evaluated a correctional officer's complicity in a victim's death, focusing on the officer's awareness of another officer's assault and his inaction in seeking medical treatment. The court found the officer's conduct significantly more egregious than in previous cases. The district court appropriately assessed the officer's overall involvement leading to the victim's death for sentencing purposes, aligning with precedents like United States v. McDougle, where neglect after witnessing abuse resulted in a death. The district court's determination that the officer acted with intent to cause bodily harm was upheld.

Moore contested his conviction for aiding and abetting a false incident report under 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 18 U.S.C. 2, arguing insufficient evidence since he did not draft the report and only provided one accurate detail. He claimed a lack of authority and intent to obstruct an investigation. To secure a conviction for aiding and abetting, the government needed to demonstrate that a substantive offense occurred, Moore associated with the criminal act, participated purposefully, and aimed for its success. The trial evidence indicated that a false report was indeed filed, and it supported the inference that Moore was involved in the deceptive process surrounding the report and the victim's treatment, thus affirming the jury's verdict.

Moore, along with Williams, was tasked with creating a report about an incident involving Robair. Moore included Robair’s doctor’s name in the report and later made false statements that aligned with the report's content, which could suggest an effort to support the report and influence jury perception. He contended that he lacked the intent to obstruct justice, arguing that a defendant must be aware that their actions obstruct an investigation. This argument was dismissed, citing that knowledge of impeding an investigation is not a requirement. 

Moore also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction on count 3, which accused him of making false statements to the FBI regarding whether Williams assaulted Robair. He argued the statements were not material to the FBI's civil rights charges decision. However, a statement is deemed material if it can influence the decision-making body, even if the agency is already aware of the truth. Since his false statements directly pertained to the investigation of a potential federal crime against Williams, they were considered material.

Additionally, Moore claimed that the district court made an error in sentencing, particularly regarding the application of U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(c)(1) related to obstruction of justice. He argued that the obstruction must target an ongoing investigation. This objection was not raised at the district court level, so it was reviewed for plain error. Moore failed to cite any precedent requiring an ongoing investigation for the obstruction guideline to apply. It was noted that both defendants were trained to understand the potential for FBI investigations when police use unnecessary force, and the police report was filed contemporaneously with the events. The FBI initiated an investigation shortly after, and the underlying offense statute does not necessitate an ongoing investigation. Thus, Moore did not demonstrate a clear or obvious error. Furthermore, he contended that if the obstruction guideline applied, the district court should have based the offense level on involuntary rather than voluntary manslaughter.

The argument regarding the sentence of defendant Moore was previously addressed and rejected in relation to defendant Williams. Moore contends that his sentence is grossly unreasonable and excessive, primarily criticizing the structure of U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(c)(1), which enhanced his sentence due to his involvement in obstructing justice during the investigation of Williams’ crime. This guideline is intentionally designed to increase sentences based on the severity of the underlying crime being obstructed. The guideline clarifies that serious forms of obstruction are treated more harshly, particularly when they relate to avoiding punishment for an offense committed by the defendant or aiding another in evading punishment. Although Moore is not charged with the full offense level for voluntary manslaughter, the cross-reference to 2X3.1 results in a lower base offense level. His sentence of 70 months is within the guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, and the district court took into account the guidelines and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Consequently, the sentence is deemed presumptively reasonable, and the court affirms the judge's discretion in this matter. Moore's arguments regarding his trainee status and peripheral role in the crime were noted, but the district court opted to impose the minimum sentence within the guideline range, which it deemed appropriate after considering all relevant facts. The convictions and sentences for both defendants are thus affirmed.