U.S. v. Maggitt, 85-4468

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Citation784 F.2d 590
Docket NumberNo. 85-4468,85-4468
Parties20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 297 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley MAGGITT and Tommy Maggitt, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date06 March 1986

Robert B. McDuff, University of Mississippi Law School, University, Miss. (Court-appointed), for defendants-appellants.

Glen H. Davidson, U.S. Atty., John R. Hailman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Before WISDOM, REAVLEY, and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Appellants Shirley Maggitt and Tommy Maggitt appeal from their obstruction of justice convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513. Finding appellants' contentions to be without merit, this Court affirms the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 31, 1984, appellant's brother Willie Maggitt was arrested for armed robbery of a federally insured bank at Oakland, Mississippi. Willie Harold Williams (Harold Williams) provided significant information leading to the arrest of Willie Maggitt. Williams also testified on three occasions before a federal grand jury investigating the bank robbery.

Willie Maggit's federal trial for bank robbery was set for January 14, 1985. 1 In early December of 1984, Shirley Maggitt approached Williams and said "She hoped [Williams] did not go up there and ... [get] her involved in it [the robbery charges]." Later that month, on December 25, 1984, Shirley Maggitt told Williams that she "knowed what [Williams] said and she stood too much to lose and she would kill [Williams]" because she thought Williams had said something to implicate her in the bank robbery.

On January 11, 1985, Williams saw Tommy Maggitt at a cafe. Tommy Maggitt told Williams that Williams was a "snitch" who had "got my brother locked up" and that Williams "could have an accident." Earlier that evening, Tommy Maggitt had told an acquaintance of Williams that "your boy Harold is a snitch" and "he could have an accident." Tommy Maggitt told another acquaintance that "the boy [Harold Williams] told the FBIs and the police everything" and that he was going to kill Williams.

The FBI had advised Williams to promptly contact the FBI if he received any threatening communications. Within an hour after seeing Tommy Maggitt at the cafe on January 11, Williams went to the local police department and reported Tommy Maggitt's remarks. After being asked if he had received any other threatening communications, Williams reported Shirley Maggitt's remarks which had occurred nearly three weeks earlier. Williams later testified that he delayed in reporting Shirley Maggitt's comments because he "did not think nothing about it" because he knew "she was not going to hurt me."

Shirley and Tommy Maggitt were each charged in a single indictment with one count of tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 2 and a second count of retaliating against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513. 3 Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a number of pretrial motions on behalf of Shirley and Tommy Maggitt including: (1) a motion to sever the defendants for trial; (2) a motion to dismiss count three of the indictment charging Tommy Maggitt with violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 for failure to state all of the essential elements of the offense; and (3) a motion to dismiss or require an election of counts because of alleged multiplicity in the indictment. The district court denied each motion. Following a joint trial, the Maggitts were convicted on each of the four counts contained in the indictment.

Both now appeal from their respective convictions. On appeal, Shirley Maggitt contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support her convictions. Tommy Maggitt challenges the district court's denial of his pretrial motions. Tommy Maggitt also contends that the district court committed reversible error by allowing the Government to introduce evidence regarding his previous incarceration and his allegedly violent and dangerous character.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT SHIRLEY MAGGITT UNDER 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 AND 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513

Shirley Maggitt challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions for witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 and retaliation against a witness under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 punishes only those threats made with the intent to cause the witness to withhold future testimony. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 punishes only threats made with an intent to retaliate against a government witness. Shirley Maggitt contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish that she had the requisite intent to violate either statutory provision.

Our review of the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction is limited. As this Court stated in United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983):

It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonably hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.

In making this review, this Court views the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

Intent may, and generally must, be proven circumstantially. Generally, the natural probable consequences of an act may satisfactorily evidence the state of mind accompanying the act, even when a particular mental attitude is a crucial element of the offense. United States v. Jackson, 513 F.2d 456, 461 (D.C.Cir.1975). In determining whether a threat was intended to influence future conduct under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512, it is the endeavor to bring about a forbidden result and not the success in actually achieving the result that is forbidden. See generally United States v. Jackson, 513 F.2d 456, 460 (D.C.Cir.1975); United States v. De Stefano, 476 F.2d 324, 330 (7th Cir.1973) (it is not necessary to prove that a witness was actually intimidated by the threats). However, whether a threat had a reasonable tendency to influence the witness is relevant in determining an accused's state of mind. United States v. Harris, 558 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir.1977). Also, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513, the Government need not establish an intent to carry out the threat; the only intent required is an intent to retaliate. United States v. Velasquez, 772 F.2d 1348 (7th Cir.1985).

The evidence of Shirley Maggitt's intent to influence future testimony and intent to retaliate is far from overwhelming. Nevertheless, we conclude that the evidence of intent is legally sufficient to support her convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513. Shirley Maggitt was concerned that Williams might implicate her as an accomplice in the bank robbery. Williams had told the police that although Shirley Maggitt had not at the time known of the bank robbery, she later accepted part of the proceeds of that robbery and knew that Willie Maggitt had improperly obtained the money.

In early December of 1984, Shirley Maggitt saw Williams at a laundromat and told him that she hoped he would not further implicate her in the bank robbery. Later that month, on December 25, 1984, Shirley Maggitt encountered Williams on the street. Regarding that encounter, Williams testified as follows:

Q: What happened?

A: She told me that she had read the report 4 and she knowed what I said and she stood too much to lose and she would kill me or something of that nature.

Q: Did that surprise you?

A: Yes. I really did not think nothing about it. I thought she was just--Thought maybe if I had said something to implicate her or something like that.

Record Vol. III at 108. Williams did not immediately report this incident to the FBI based on his belief that Shirley Maggitt would not actually harm him.

Shirley Maggitt's threat to kill Williams was reported only after Tommy Maggitt threatened Williams on January 11, 1985. Following Tommy Maggitt's threat, Williams went to the local police station to report the incident "because [he] just wanted to get them off [his] back...." Record Vol. III at 137. Regarding his report to the local police department, Williams testified:

I told them that Tommy Maggitt had threatened me, and they had asked me had I had any more threats against me, and I said his sister [Shirley Maggitt] had threatened me too.

Record Vol. III at 112. Williams further testified that in reporting these threats, he had never intended for the Maggitts be imprisoned.

Shirley Maggitt correctly states that the jury could have concluded based on the foregoing evidence that she lacked the intent required to violate either 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 or 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513. Shirley Maggitt had been a friend and neighbor of Williams for years. Moreover, the fact that Williams was not actually influenced by her threat was relevant in determining Shirley Maggitt's state of mind. 5 Thus, the jury could have concluded that Shirley Maggitt was just "blowing off steam."

Nevertheless, viewing the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government, the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Shirley Maggitt intended to influence Williams to not provide any further assistance to the FBI. The jury could also have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Shirley Maggitt's threat was intended in retaliation against Williams for his earlier testimony before the grand jury. Thus, the evidence was legally sufficient to support Shirley Maggitt's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • United States v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 5 Mayo 2018
    ...entirety, construed according to common sense and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied."); United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 598 (5th Cir. 1986)("An indictment is to be read in light of its purpose, which is to inform the accused of the charges.")).LAW REGARDING ......
  • U.S. v. Phillips
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 17 Octubre 1988
    ...to common sense and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied.") (citations omitted); see also United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 598 (5th Cir.1986) ("An indictment is to be read in light of its purpose, which is to inform the accused of the charges.") (citation omitte......
  • Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 91-5315
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 8 Octubre 1993
    ...belief, and state of mind may be evidenced by external circumstances and the defendant's conduct).12 See also United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593 (5th Cir.1986) (same); United States v. Harris, 558 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir.1977) (same); United States v. White, 557 F.2d 233, 236 (10th ......
  • United States v. Gadson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Agosto 2014
    ...with the specific intent to retaliate against a witness for providing information to law enforcement. See United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593–94 (5th Cir.1986). Officer Thompson's “translat[ion]” of and testimony regarding the recorded phone calls contained the only direct evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    ...Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Amor, 24 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 1994)). 187. 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b). 188. See United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593–94 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Velasquez, 772 F.2d 1348, 1356–57 (7th Cir. 1985)). 189. See Velasquez, 772 F.2d at 1358. 19......
  • Obstruction of justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...Cir. 2015). 179. § 1513(b). 180. See supra Section III.B.3 (discussing the intent element of § 1512). 181. See United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593–94 (5th Cir. 1986) (aff‌irming conviction under § 1513 where jury could have reasonably found the defendant’s threat to kill a witness w......
  • Obstruction of justice.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • 22 Marzo 2008
    ...prosecution of defendant under both [section] 1512 and [section] 1513, without discussing double jeopardy); United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 599 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that witness tampering and retaliation charges under [section] 1512 and [section] 1513 are not multiplicions, give......
  • Obstruction of Justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...184. 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b). 185. See supra Section III.B.3 (discussing the intent element of § 1512). 186. See United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593–94 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Velasquez, 772 F.2d 1348, 1356–57 (7th Cir. 1985)) (f‌inding that the evidence supported a con......
  • 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