Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03259/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abe B. Evans
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

2

Following the submission of the briefing, Evans tendered a pro se

supplemental brief challenging the sentence imposed by the district court based on

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3259

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Abe B. Evans, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: August 1, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Abe B. Evans appeals his conviction on eight counts of uttering forged

securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). On appeal, he asserts that the district

court1

 deprived him of his right to an impartial jury by dismissing a juror for cause

who expressed reservations about the credibility of witnesses who had made plea

deals with the government.2

 We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073226
facts that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We denied Evans’

motion to file the supplemental brief. Evans has since discharged his retained counsel

and is proceeding pro se. Having now considered his argument, we conclude that it

is without merit in light of our holding that Booker allows for judicial fact-finding

using a preponderance of the evidence standard as long as the guidelines are applied

in an advisory manner. United States v. Thorpe, 447 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2006).

-2-

Plastene Supply Company (Plastene) hired Evans as a maintenance worker in

1997 and terminated his employment in June 1998. During that period, Evans became

romantically involved with Andrea Buchanan, Plastene’s payroll clerk. In early 1998,

Buchanan and Evans devised a scheme to cash false payroll checks and keep the

proceeds. This scheme continued until February 2002, when Plastene discovered that

Evans and Buchanan had embezzled approximately $1.8 million. 

After Plastene discovered the scheme, Buchanan pleaded guilty to one count of

income tax fraud and one count of uttering a forged instrument, and she agreed to

testify against Evans. During jury selection, the district court asked the prospective

jurors whether they would have trouble believing witnesses who were cooperating

with the government in exchange for leniency. Voir Dire Tr. at 48. One potential

juror, Mr. Stevenson, informed the court that “this deal of making deals is something

that has always bothered me.” Id. at 61. He referenced his experience in a community

where he felt some criminals were receiving unfair plea agreements, and he twice

stated that he would need “some kind of convincing” of the propriety of such deals.

Id. at 61-62. Following a recess, the court further questioned Stevenson about what

it would take for him to believe a witness who was cooperating with the government.

Stevenson replied “That’s one thing I’m trying to figure out myself,” again

mentioning his perception of unfair plea deals in his community. Id. at 63-64.

Under questioning by the prosecutor, Stevenson said that if he were a juror in

a case “with no deals made,” he would be “level headed enough to make that without

a problem, but this other thing, the deal . . . I’m hard-headed.” Id. at 73. He explained

Appellate Case: 05-3259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073226
-3-

that in such a situation he “could probably be convinced, but it would take some

convincing to me that there wasn’t something.” Id. At the conclusion of voir dire, the

government challenged several prospective jurors for cause, including Stevenson. The

district court granted the government’s challenge of Stevenson, concluding that “the

bottom line is he really was going to have trouble being fair in this case.” Id. at 99-

100.

The decision to excuse a juror for cause is vested in the district court’s

discretion, a decision that we will uphold on review if the record reflects a legitimate

basis for it. United States v. Gianokos, 415 F.3d 912, 922 (8th Cir. 2005). In United

States v. Mills, we upheld the district court’s decision to strike two jurors for cause

because they had “demonstrated a predisposition towards disbelieving government

witnesses who testify under a grant of immunity.” 987 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir.

1993). Similarly, based on juror Stevenson’s comments quoted above, the record

shows a legitimate basis for the district court’s decision that Stevenson showed a

predisposition towards disbelieving government witnesses who were cooperating with

the government as part of a plea agreement. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3259 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073226