United States v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 08 February 2016
• Docket Number: 14–6542.,Nos. 14–6164,14–6541,14–6165,s. 14–6164
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. James Steven ROBINSON (14–6164 and 14–6165); Ruth Thomasine Robinson (14–6541); James Robinson (14–6542), Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

813 F.3d 251

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.James Steven ROBINSON (14–6164 and 14–6165); Ruth Thomasine Robinson (14–6541); James Robinson (14–6542), Defendants–Appellants.

Nos. 14–6164

14–6165

14–6541

14–6542.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2016.

Rehearing En Banc Denied April 5, 2016.

ON BRIEF:Zenaida R. Lockard, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellant in 14–6164 and 14–6165. Stephen W. Owens, Pikeville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 14–6541. Melissa M. Salinas, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Toledo, OH, Dennis G. Terez, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Cleveland, OH, for Appellant in 14–6542. Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., Andrew T. Boone, United States Attorney's Office, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MERRITT

, Circuit Judge.

In these cases we decide multiple appeals of criminal convictions and sentences relating to the 2012 mayoral election in Martin, Kentucky.

In that election, incumbent Mayor Ruth Thomasine Robinson ("Thomasine Robinson"), her husband James Robinson, and his son James Steven Robinson ("Steven Robinson") allegedly attempted to secure Thomasine Robinson's reelection by coercing and bribing voters to vote for her. After a three-day jury trial, all three defendants were convicted of vote buying under 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c)

(now 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) ), and Thomasine Robinson and Steven Robinson were convicted of conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. The jury also found James Robinson guilty of conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241, but the district court subsequently granted James Robinson's motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 on that charge.

Thomasine Robinson now argues that there was insufficient evidence to support either of her convictions, and that the district court therefore erred in denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29

. Steven Robinson likewise argues that his conviction for conspiracy to violate civil rights should be vacated because it is not supported by sufficient evidence. He also argues that the district court improperly imposed a requirement that he abstain from alcohol use as a term of his supervised release. Finally, James Robinson argues that the district court improperly reserved its ruling on his Rule 29 motion for acquittal, that the district court improperly applied enhancements to his sentence, and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon considering each issue in turn, we AFFIRM the judgements of the district court.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In November 2012, Mayor Thomasine Robinson of Martin, Kentucky, sought reelection. Martin would choose its mayor in the general election of November 6, where statewide and national offices were also on the ballot. A tight race was expected between Thomasine Robinson and Sam Howell, her challenger (Howell would ultimately win by only three votes). After the election, James Robinson physically confronted Sam Howell and threatened to kill him before he could take office; he was later convicted in Kentucky state court of terroristic threatening and menacing.

According to the allegations of the United States, Thomasine Robinson and her associates turned to illegal tactics in an attempt to secure votes for her reelection. Specifically at issue here are the alleged efforts of Thomasine Robinson, her husband James Robinson, and his son Steven Robinson (Thomasine Robinson's step-son) to deliver votes through a campaign of bribery, coercion, and intimidation.

The United States produced many witnesses to testify to these efforts. Some of the relevant testimony indicated that: Thomasine Robinson gave Ruby Wallen $20 to vote for her in the election; that Thomasine Robinson, with the cooperation of Ginger Stumbo, coerced and threatened voters to get them to vote for her by absentee ballot; that Steven Robinson, with the cooperation of Henry Mullins, attempted to intimidate and coerce Robert Clay to vote for Thomasine; that James Robinson gave Ashley Hale $10 to vote for Thomasine; and that James Robinson gave Henry Mullins money with which to purchase votes for Thomasine.

James Robinson moved for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29

at the close of the government's case, and at the close of all evidence, but the district court reserved the motion both times. The jury returned a guilty verdict on both the conspiracy and vote-buying charges, but the district court then granted James Robinson's Rule 29 motion as to the conspiracy charge. Thomasine Robinson was found guilty of vote-buying and conspiracy to violate civil rights, and Steven Robinson was found guilty of conspiracy to violate civil rights and two counts of vote-buying, but acquitted of a third count of vote-buying.

At sentencing, the district court assessed a leadership enhancement to James Robinson for directing Henry Mullins to help purchase votes and providing him with cash to do so, and an obstruction of justice enhancement for behaving menacingly toward federal employees during a trial recess. The district court then sentenced him to an above-guidelines sentence of 40 months in prison. Steven Robinson was sentenced to 21 months in prison and three years of supervised release. As a special condition of his supervised release, he was required to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. Thomasine Robinson was sentenced to 33 months in prison.

These appeals followed.

II. Discussion

A. Thomasine Robinson

Thomasine Robinson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions for conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241

and vote buying under 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) (now 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) ).

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction de novo.United States v. Fisher, 648 F.3d 442, 450 (6th Cir.2011)

(citations omitted). However, a sufficiency of the evidence challenge places a "very heavy burden" on the defendants-appellants: they must show that "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, [no] reasonable trier of could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Sease, 659 F.3d 519, 523 (6th Cir.2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

1.

In order to support a conviction for vote buying, the prosecution needed only to offer evidence that Thomasine Robinson paid or offered to pay for a vote in an election "held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate" for federal office. 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c)

.

It is undisputed that the 2012 election at issue included the election of candidates for federal office, including the President of the United States, so it was a covered election under the federal vote-buying statute. Ruby Wallen testified that Thomasine Robinson gave her $20 to vote in the 2012 election. Wallen's testimony was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have found Thomasine Robinson guilty of vote buying beyond a reasonable doubt. Thomasine Robinson's contention that her vote-buying conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence fails.

2.

Under federal law it is unlawful to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of [voting rights], or because of his having so exercised the same." 18 U.S.C. § 241

. This statutory proscription of conspiracy to violate civil rights prohibits interference with a voter's right to cast a ballot for his or her preferred candidate, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 309–15, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941)

(discussing an earlier codification of the statute at 18 U.S.C. § 51), and prohibits interference with the right of voters to have their votes free from dilution by unlawfully procured votes, Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974).

" ‘To obtain a conviction for conspiracy to violate civil rights under § 241

, the government must prove that [the defendant] knowingly agreed with another person to injure [a third party] in the exercise of a right guaranteed under the Constitution,’ and that there was specific intent to commit the deprivation." United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873, 885 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575–76 (6th Cir.1995) ). "The existence of a [§ 241 ] conspiracy ... need not be proven by direct evidence, [and] a common plan may be inferred from circumstantial evidence." United States v. Gresser, 935 F.2d 96, 101 (6th Cir.1991) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). As such, "a tacit understanding is enough to show a conspiratorial agreement." Id. "Furthermore, once a conspiracy has been established, only slight evidence is necessary to implicate a defendant." Id.

Thomasine Robinson argues that she did not oppress, threaten, or intimidate any alleged victims, and did not violate their constitutional rights. But the government offered evidence at trial that indicated otherwise, and allowed a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomasine Robinson was guilty of conspiracy to violate civil rights by interfering with rights of voters to cast the votes of their choice and/or have their votes free from dilution by improperly procured votes.

For instance, the testimony of Ginger Stumbo would have allowed the jury to find an agreement between Stumbo and Thomasine Robinson to conspire to improperly submit absentee ballots for Thomasine Robinson under the names of individuals who may not have otherwise voted (in the guise of an effort to help and supervise such individuals), and also an intent by Thomasine Robinson to join that conspiracy through tacit agreement with Stumbo:

Q.... Now, in the fall of 2012, were you asked by Mayor Robinson to help in the election?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were you asked to do?

A.

...