Sophin v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | EP-15-CR-418-KC |
| Citation | 153 F.Supp.3d 956 |
| Parties | Michael J. Sophin, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Patricia Aguayo, U.S. Attorney's Office, El Paso, TX, for Appellee.
Edgar H. Holguin, Public Defenders Office, El Paso, TX, for Appellant.
Defendant Michael J. Sophin (“Sophin”) appeals his misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), for forcibly interfering with John Mossman, a United States Border Patrol agent (“Agent Mossman”). Sophin's primary argument on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to uphold his conviction. The Court agrees, and reverses Sophin's conviction. Further, because the Court holds there is insufficient evidence to uphold Sophin's conviction, the Court does not reach the remaining issues raised in Sophin's appeal.
On October 3, 2014, United States Border Patrol (“Border Patrol”) agents arrested Sophin at the Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate Highway 10 East approximately four miles west of Sierra Blanca, Texas (“Checkpoint”), located within the Western District of Texas. See Compl. 2-3. Initially, the Government charged Sophin with the felony of High Speed Flight from an Immigration Checkpoint in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 758. See Compl., United States v. Sophin , EP-14-MJ-3889-RFC, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2014). However, the Government dismissed that case on October 9, 2015. See Order of Dismissal, EP-14-MJ-3889-RFC, ECF No. 8 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2014). That same day, the Government charged Sophin with the misdemeanor offense of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a Border Patrol agent engaged in his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. See Compl., United States v. Sophin , EP-14-MJ-3964-RFC (W.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2014).1
On January 6, 2015, a jury trial began in the magistrate court. Jury Trial Tr. 112, ECF No. 72. The Government rested at the end of the day. Id . at 179:7-8. Sophin did not present any witnesses. Id . at 179:15-22. Instead, he moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the Government had not proved he “forcibly” impeded or interfered with Agent Mossman when he refused to answer questions and drove away from the Checkpoint. Id . at 181-83. The magistrate court took the motion under advisement, id . at 188:12-13, but orally denied Sophin's motion for judgment of acquittal on January 7, 2015, Jury Trial Tr. Vol. 2 of 2, 3:3, ECF No. 67. On January 7, 2015, the jury returned a guilty verdict against Sophin for forcibly interfering with Agent Mossman. Verdict, ECF No. 60.
On January 21, 2015, Sophin filed a written motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Mot. for Acquittal, ECF No. 68. On February 9, 2015, the magistrate court denied the motion for acquittal and for a new trial. Order, ECF No. 71.
On March 16, 2015, the magistrate court sentenced Sophin to eight months of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release, and imposed a special assessment of $25.00. Misdemeanor Sent'g, ECF No. 78. Sophin filed a timely notice of appeal on March 25, 2015. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 81. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3402.
In his appeal, Sophin asks this Court to overturn his conviction by finding there is insufficient evidence that he forcibly interfered with Agent Mossman. Appellant's Br. 19-33, EP-15-CR-418-KC, ECF No. 13. Sophin also presents five alternative arguments on appeal, asking the Court to: (1) vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial because the magistrate court failed to define “forcibly” for the jury; (2) vacate his conviction because § 111(a) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; (3) vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial because the magistrate court erred in allowing Agent Mossman to testify as to legal conclusions; (4) vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial because the errors at trial, in the aggregate, denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial; and (5) vacate his sentence because the magistrate court erroneously scored three of Sophin's prior misdemeanor convictions for criminal history purposes. Id . at 34-49.
On November 19, 2015, the Government filed a Motion to Remand for New Trial, conceding that the magistrate court should have defined “forcibly” in its instructions to the jury, and urging the Court to remand for a new trial. Mot. to Remand for New Trial 2-3, EP-15-CR-418-KC, ECF No. 18 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2015). On November 20, 2015, the Court heard oral arguments, primarily on the issue of sufficiency of the evidence. See Oral Argument, EP-15-CR-418-KC, ECF No. 19.
The evidence the Government presented at trial relevant to this appeal includes a video Sophin recorded using a camera he had placed inside his car, along with a video recorded by Border Patrol at the Checkpoint.2 Gov't Ex. 1; Gov't Ex. 2; see Pretrial Conf. Tr. 12-15, ECF No. 83. Sophin's video provided an audio recording of the event, while the Checkpoint video, which was captured from a higher vantage point, did not. See Gov't Ex. 1; Gov't Ex. 2; Pretrial Conf. Tr. 12-14. Additionally, the Government presented testimony from Agent Mossman and the agent that arrested Sophin. See generally Jury Trial Tr. 147-69, 170-77. The evidence produced at trial sets forth the following facts:
On the evening of October 3, 2014, Agent Mossman was stationed at the Checkpoint. Id . at 150:3-18. At one point, a white van failed to stop where Agent Mossman was standing. Id . at 168: 10-23; Gov't Ex. 2. Agent Mossman either yelled or signaled at the van to stop. Jury Trial Tr. at 168:15-18. The van then stopped and Agent Mossman questioned the occupants. Id . at 168:15-169:6. The van then drove away. Gov't Ex. 2.
Shortly thereafter, Sophin approached the Checkpoint in his Dodge Magnum. Jury Trial Tr. 150, 152:2-3, 155:3. He had a video camera mounted inside his car that was turned on and recording his interaction with Agent Mossman. See id . at 155:9-17; Pretrial Conf. Tr. 12:22-24.
When Sophin pulled up to the Checkpoint, Agent Mossman asked Sophin whether he was traveling by himself, and Sophin replied that he was. Jury Trial Tr. 152:2-3. Agent Mossman then attempted to determine Sophin's alienage by asking him if he was a United States citizen. See id . at 152:3-4, 153:3, 153:10-14; Gov't Ex. 1. Sophin responded: “You know, I was going to tell you I wasn't going to take any questions today, and then I realized that, as a matter of fact a girlfriend reminded me, that if Obama is letting everybody in the country ....” Gov't Ex. 1. Agent Mossman asked Sophin whether he was a U.S. citizen three more times, and Sophin repeatedly told Agent Mossman he was not going to answer the question. Id .
Agent Mossman then turned to look over his shoulder, Gov't Ex. 2, intending to refer Sophin to an area directly behind him where Sophin would be questioned further, Jury Trial Tr. 153:20-24. At the same time, Sophin said, “Okay, thanks, good night,” and drove away. Gov't Ex. 1; Gov't Ex. 2. Agent Mossman told Sophin he was “not free to go,” as Sophin drove away. Gov't Ex. 1. The exchange lasted for approximately thirty seconds. See id . Agent Mossman testified that after Sophin drove away, he used his hand-held radio to request that a supervisor come outside “[b]ecause ... Sophin had not answered [his] questions.” Jury Trial Tr. 157:1-5.
During the exchange, there was no physical contact between Sophin and Agent Mossman. Id . at 165:11-12, 167:21-22. Agent Mossman testified that when Sophin drove away, Sophin did not “rev up his engine,” threaten Agent Mossman, attempt to run Agent Mossman over, and did not “take off, leaving tire marks” at the Checkpoint. Id . at 167:18-168:2. Agent Mossman agreed on cross-examination that “[e]ssentially, [Sophin] pulled away.” Id . at 168:8-9. Agent Mossman did not “have to jump out of the way of [Sophin's] car,” and he did not attempt to reach into Sophin's car to try to grab the steering wheel. Id . at 168:3-7. Agent Mossman explained that he did not reach into the car because: Id . at 170:2-4.
At trial, the following exchange took place when the prosecutor was questioning Agent Mossman on direct examination:
Sophin properly preserved the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction by moving for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case and at the close of all evidence. See id . at 181-83; Mot. for Acquittal. Accordingly, the Court reviews the issue de novo. See United States v. Shum , 496 F.3d 390, 391 (5th Cir.2007).
In assessing sufficiency of the evidence, the Court must determine “whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id . at 391 (citing Jackson v. Virgi nia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Escajeda
...issue to be decided by the trier of fact,'" such testimony may not "tell the jury what result to reach." Sophin v. United States, 153 F.Supp.3d 956, 965 n.6 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Williams, 343 F.3d at 435; Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1983)).E. Expert Testimony ......
-
United States v. Marquez
...conduct. Quite recently, however, one of our sister courts from the Western District of Texas, in a case styled Sophin v. United States , 153 F.Supp.3d 956 (W.D. Tex. 2015), saw fit to define section 111 force using its "ordinary meaning" as did the Johnson court. Sophin 's facts parallel t......
-
Sapp v. Wood Grp. PSN, Inc.
... 153 F.Supp.3d 947 Randall Sapp v. Wood Group PSN, Inc., et al. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. Signed December 23, 2015 153 F.Supp.3d 948 Charles Arlen ... ...
-
Sanchez v. Gomez
...issue to be decided by the trier of fact,'" such testimony may not "tell the jury what result to reach." Sophin v. United States, 153 F.Supp.3d 956, 965 n.6 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Williams, 343 F.3d at 435; Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1983)). E. Expert Testimony......