United States v. McQueen

Decision Date22 August 2013
Docket NumberNo. 12–10840.,12–10840.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee Cross–Appellant, v. Alexander McQUEEN, Steven Dawkins, Defendants–Appellants Cross Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Angela Macdonald Miller, Henry C. Leventis, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Susan R. Osborne, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for PlaintiffAppelleeCross Appellant.

Ari H. Gerstin, Richard A. Sharpstein, Akerman Senterfitt, LLP, Janice Burton Sharpstein, Jorden Burt, LLP, Miami, FL, for DefendantAppellantCross Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 1:11–cr–20393–CMA–1.

Before BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,* District Judge.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

Alexander McQueen, a Sergeant at the South Florida Reception Center (“SFRC”), appeals his conviction for conspiring to deprive several inmates of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment following a jury trial, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241, and for obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Steven Dawkins, a corrections officer at the SFRC, also appeals his conviction for obstruction of justice. Both officers argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their obstruction convictions, the district court gave erroneous jury instructions, and the government improperly bolstered a witness's testimony. McQueen also claims the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conspiracy charge.

In a cross-appeal, the government contests McQueen's sentence of a twelve month prison term and Dawkins's sentence of only one month in jail, arguing that the sentences varied sharply from the recommended Guidelines range—indeed, they varied downward by more than 90% from the bottom of the sentencing range—and were substantively unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm the convictions but vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

I.
A.

The essential facts adduced at trial are these: Scott Butler, Guruba Griffin, Alexander McQueen, and Steven Dawkins (collectively, the Corrections Officers) worked as law enforcement officers at the South Florida Reception Center, a state prison in Doral, Florida. A federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida charged that, on or about February 25, 2009, Butler, Griffin, and McQueen assaulted prisoners, sometimes using broomsticks, as Dawkins idly watched. Count One of the indictment specifically alleged that the four prison guards conspired in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 “to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate inmates” so as to violate the prisoners' right “to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.” Count Two charged McQueen with having filed a false report to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and Count Three charged Dawkins with likewise obstructing justice in violation of § 1519.

Although the Corrections Officers were to be tried together, the government sought to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence that Butler and Griffin organized fights among inmates, that they regularly carried broomsticks as weapons, and that Griffin routinely disciplined inmates using extreme and violent measures. Since some of this evidence was relevant only as to Griffin and Butler but could unfairly prejudice Dawkins and McQueen, the district court concluded that the trial should engage the services of two petit juries. One jury would hear all the evidence, including evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, and decide Griffin's and Butler's fate; the other jury would decide McQueen's and Dawkins's cases but would not observe the 404(b) evidence.

Both juries heard an extensive and violent story concerning the abuse and beatings of several inmates at the South Florida Reception Center. Juedline Bertrand and Marvin Woods were housed in the “youthful offender” wing of the prison, where every prisoner under the age of twenty-one and convicted of a felony was kept, segregated and safeguarded from the older inmates in the prison. On February 25, 2009, Bertrand accused Woods of stealing his “honey bun”; a fight broke out between them in an empty room on the second floor of their prison wing. During the fight, Woods smashed his head against an object—a toilet or possibly the metal frame of a bunk bed—causing him to gash his face and bleed. As the fight wound down, the public address system instructed the prisoners to return to their cells. Bertrand returned, but Woods, who was dazed and confused, didn't move. Officer Griffin, who was going from cell to cell counting the inmates, found Woods in an empty room. When Woods would not disclose who injured him, Griffin ordered every inmate in the wing—two dozen or so—into the day room, demanded that the prisoners get their stories straight, and walked out.

Griffin later returned to the day room with Sergeant McQueen and Officer Dawkins in tow. Griffin asked the assembled inmates who had fought with Woods. No one responded. McQueen was the ranking officer at the time. In retaliation for the prisoners' silence, McQueen grabbed a broomstick, snapped it in half, and whacked Woods's legs with the broken broomstick. Woods begged McQueen to stop, but that apparently further enraged the officer, causing him to slam Woods's head, aggravating Woods's injury. Officer Griffin, also armed with a broomstick, then turned his attention to inmate Rondell Lyles. Griffin asked Lyles whether he had seen the fight. Lyles said that he had not. Apparently not believing Lyles, Griffin directed Lyles to put his hands on a bench, whereupon he smacked Lyles's knuckles some three to six times with the broomstick half.

Griffin then asked the assembled inmates if any of them wanted to fight. One prisoner, Branden Pressley, responded that he would brawl with Bertrand. Griffin sanctioned the fight, but imposed certain rules—the fighters were required to box, not wrestle, for three rounds of three minutes each. Not being professional boxers, Pressley and Bertrand violated the rules and, at times, wrestled. When that happened, Griffin and McQueen hit or slapped the violator. At one point, Sergeant McQueen fiercely choked Pressley, who begged McQueen and Griffin to stop the fight. The officers wouldn't let him quit, however, forcing the fight to continue. When the fight finally ended, Bertrand sucker punched Pressley, which led McQueen to attack Bertrand, again with the broomstick. Tired and overpowered by a corrections officer wielding a broomstick, Bertrand curled into a defensive ball. Griffin came over to Bertrand, reassured him that he could get off the floor, and promised that no one would hurt him any more. But as soon as Bertrand stood up, Griffin slapped or punched his nose, causing it to bleed. Griffin grabbed Bertrand's throat, choking him with two hands and digging his nails into the inmate's neck. Griffin converted the choke into a chokehold and held it long enough to knock Bertrand unconscious.

The wanton violence continued on February 25th. Griffin and McQueen proceeded to beat another inmate, Kenneth Steward,with the broomstick halves. They did so because Steward had earlier harassed one of Sergeant McQueen's friends in the medical room. McQueen and Griffin—for no apparent reason—also struck another inmate, Lazaro Martinez, with broomstick halves, striking Martinez's chest and arms six to eight times. The beatings continued as Griffin and McQueen also pummeled inmate Christopher Jarret with broomsticks. Although somewhere between twenty and twenty-five prisoners witnessed the beatings, only one complained to the prison officials; the others refused to speak in fear of reprisal.

Several prison officials testified at trial. They recounted in some detail the injuries sustained by inmates Bertrand, Jarret, Martinez, Steward, and Woods to their chests, arms, and biceps. The injuries were visible days after the attacks. The officials also testified that corrections officers were required to report any violence involving the prisoners, including the use of force by other corrections officers. Nevertheless, two reports—one written by McQueen and the other by Dawkins—downplayed or ignored the repeated acts of violence that occurred on February 25, 2009. Dawkins signed a housing unit log that made no mention of violence or of any fighting. McQueen, who eventually accompanied Woods to the medical station, drafted an incident report about Woods's injuries. The report falsely failed to recite that Woods was attacked by Sergeant McQueen; rather, it explained that Woods had injured himself while cleaning the shower.

The second of the two petit juries also heard additional testimony concerning Officers Griffin and Butler. Griffin repeatedly warned the prisoners that, if any of them had a problem with another inmate, he would let the two fight. Griffin also forced the arms of at least two prisoners inside ice water filled coolers, waited for the ice water to numb their arms, and then struck their hands with handcuffs or broomsticks.

In the end, the jury found Sergeant McQueen guilty both of conspiring to violate the prisoners' civil rights and of filing a false report in order to obstruct justice. The same jury, however, found Officer Dawkins not guilty of conspiring to violate the prisoners' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, but concluded that he too was guilty of obstructing justice. The second jury found Butler not guilty, but it could not return a verdict against Officer Griffin, resulting in a mistrial.

B.

The district court scheduled Griffin's case for a second trial, but instead Griffin entered into a plea agreement whereby he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor for willfully depriving one inmate of a right secured by the Constitution in violation of § 242, and thereby face a maximum exposure of only one year in jail. In sharp contrast, both McQueen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • United States v. Dougherty, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-69
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 31, 2015
    ...Courts of Appeal have commented that "general deterrence . . . is one of the key purposes of sentencing." United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1158 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Medearis, 451 F.3d 918, 920-21 (8th Cir. 2006)). As theSupreme Court has explained, deterrence i......
  • United States v. Hayes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 12, 2014
    ...the [district] court to consider other similarly situated defendants ... who were convicted of similar crimes.” United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1160 (11th Cir.2013). First, the district court never explained what unwarranted sentencing disparity would result if Mr. Hayes were sente......
  • Calvin v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • March 19, 2016
    ...are subject to control by the authority operating the institution in which they are incarcerated. See United States v. McQueen , 727 F.3d 1144, 1158 (11th Cir.2013) (noting that “[p]rison inmates serve their sentences under the pervasive control of the corrections staff”). These two facts t......
  • United States v. Barnes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 16, 2018
    ...and 242. These crimes have generally been seen as severe crimes, meriting severe sentences. See United States v. McQueen (Alexander) , 727 F.3d 1144, 1160 (11th Cir. 2013) ("As best as we can tell, the federal courts have treated violations of § 241 by police or corrections officers as seri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...Nexus Requirement After Arthur Andersen and Sarbanes- Oxley, 93 CORNELL L. REV. 401, 405 (2008). 244. See United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1151–52 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the statute requires only that a criminal defendant “knowingly” alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover ......
  • Obstruction of justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...Nexus Requirement After Arthur Andersen and SarbanesOxley , 93 CORNELL L. REV. 401, 405 (2008). 235. See United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1151–52 (11th Cir. 2013). 236. E.g. , United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2012), superseded on other grounds by statute , U.S.S.......
  • Obstruction of Justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...Nexus Requirement After Arthur Andersen and SarbanesOxley , 93 CORNELL L. REV. 401, 405 (2008). 240. See United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1151–52 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the statute requires only that a criminal defendant “knowingly” alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover u......
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 62, February 2015
    • February 1, 2015
    ...ground of the lock-up corridor. (Massachusetts Department of Correction) U.S. Appeals Court BRUTALITY EXCESSIVE FORCE U.S. v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2013). After a state prison sergeant was convicted of conspiring to deprive several inmates of their right to be free from cruel an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT