US v. Legins: Legins was a federal prison guard who was charged with sexually assaulting an inmate and making false statements to investigators who were questioning him about the incidents. At his arraignment, he was informed that the statutory maximum for the false statements conviction was five years. Legins went to trial and was acquitted on all counts aside from making false statements. At sentencing, the district court (over Legins’ objection) concluded that the statutory maximum for that offense was eight years, rather than five, because it related to a sexual offense. It eventually imposed an upward variance sentence of 54 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Legins’ conviction and sentence. As to the conviction, Legins argued that it could be sustained only if the Government proved each statement involved was false for the reasons set forth in the indictment. In other words, the false statement conviction could not be sustained because the jury had acquitted Legins of the sexual offenses he was alleged to have lied about. The court rejected that argument, noting that given the deferential standard of review, an “uncorroborated account of a single witness may constitute sufficient evidence” and there as that evidence here (the court also called the victim’s testimony “significantly corroborated”). Nor was the jury’s verdict necessarily inconsistent, as the elements of the sexual offense counts were different in particular definitional ways than in the false statement count. As for the sentence, the court held that the district court had committed error under Apprendi because the indictment (and the jury instructions) did not allege that the matter at issue related to a sexual offense. However, the error was harmless because the enhancement was supported by overwhelming evidence and was uncontroverted (not that the assaults happened, but that the investigation related to sexual assaults). The sentence was also otherwise reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment