# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 15 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Sean Co nk li n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 13
Fil ed : Ap ril 29 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Sean Co nk li n of as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly in jury, in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 3( a)(6 ) an d 11 53

. He was se nt e n c e d to a te rm of 45

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d 24 m on th s’ su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Co nk li n ap pe al s, arg ui ngth at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al be cau se 1

th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he ve rd ic t. We affir m

.

In A p r i l 2 0 1 0, Ja y Van W at erm ul en was st ay in g wit h m em be rs of hi s

ex cav at io n crew at th e Fo ur Bea rs Cas in o an d Lod ge in New Town , No rth Dak ot a,

ne ar whe re th e crew was wor ki ng on a si te

. On Apr il 13

, he an d se ve ral co -wo rk ers

wen t to th e cas in o, dr an k se ve ral be ers , a nd ga m bl ed

. W he n Van W at erm ul en w as

pr ep ari ng to le av e, he go t up an d m ov ed be twee n a l i n e a t t he ba r an d so m e ta bl es ,
po ss ib ly bu m

pi n g i n t o so m eo ne

. W hi le Van W at erm ul en was m ov in g, so m eo ne

st ru c k h i m. H e en de d up on th e flo or , bl eed in g fro m hi s m ou th

. Van W at erm ul en
lo st a to ot h; hi s jaw, br ok en in th ree pl aces , req ui red or al su rg ery an d ha d to be wire d

sh ut for si x wee ks

.

At tri al

, Van W at erm

ul en ad m i t t ed he di d no t se e who st ru ck hi m

. He al so

ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, th at im m ed ia te ly aft er th e as sa ul t, he ob se rv ed a m al e sa y in g, “ I

di dn ’t m ean to

, I di dn ’t m ean to ,” as he walk ed away f r o m Van W at erm

ul en

. Van

W at erm ul en tes ti fie d t ha t hi s co-wo rk ers cal le d for sec ur it y to st op th e m an , and he

was de ta in ed

. The pr os ecu ti on al so rel ie d on th e te st imo n y of two of Van

W at erm ul en ’s co -wo rk ers an d a se cu rit y gu ard fro m th e cas in o to pr ov e th at Co nk li n

co m m it te d th e as sa ul t. Dua ne Aho ne n , o n e o f th e co -wo rk ers , te st ifi ed th at he

be cam e aware of a “ sl ig ht al te rca t i o n ” a n d lo ok ed ov er to se e so m eo ne th ro w a

pu nc h. Alt ho ug h he di d no t se e whe re th e pu nc h la nd ed

, he sa w Van W at erm ul en

ge tt in g o ff the flo or an d bl eed in g from th e m ou th

. Aho ne n saw the m an who th rew

th e pu nc h he ad in g fo r th e do or , so he cal le d se cu rit y gu ard s ov er to st op th e m an , an d

he te st ifi ed th at se cu rit y di d st op th e m an he sa w th r o w t h e pu nc h. Ano th er co

wor ke r, W ay ne W ei nb erg er, te st ifi ed th at Van W a t e r mu l e n ha d po in te d to th e m an

w h o h a d hi t hi m , an d W ei nb erg er fo ll owe d th e m an an d cal le d fo r se cu rit y to s t o p

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Unite d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nort h Dak ot a.

-2

-hi m

. The cas in o’s se cu rit y sh ift su pe rv is or at th e ti m e, Cat li n S i t t i n g B ear, al so

te st ifi ed

. He st at ed th at he res po nd ed to a rad io cal l of a fig ht in pr o g res s, an d th at

he res tra in ed Co nk li n, who m th e f i r s t s e c u rit y of

fic er on th e sc en e ha d st op pe d.

Si tt in g Bea r al so t e s t i f

ie d th at Co nk li n ur ge d Si tt in g Bea r to rel eas e hi m be cau se

Co nk li n h ad “ he ard th e o th er i nd iv id ua l was no t g oi ng to pre ss ch arg es .”

At th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e an d ag ai n whe n th e de fen se res te d,

Co nk li n m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e

29

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed bo th m ot io ns , an d th e jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t of gu il ty.

Co nk li n a pp eal s.

Co nk li n ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng hi s co nv ic ti on

. He arg ue s th at th ere was no di rect ev id en ce tha t he ass au lt ed Van W at erm ul en , an d

th at th e go ve rn m en t’s ci rcu m st an ti al cas e is in s u f f i c ie nt

, be cau se ke y te st im on y at

tri al was in he ren tl y in cred ib le

. W he th er th e ve rd ic t res ts on di rect or ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce, we vi ew th e e v i d e n c e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d wil l

rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le juro r co ul d ha ve fo un d gu il t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

Uni te d St at es v. Meeks

, 63 9 F.3 d 52 2, 52 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Har ri so n , 13 3 F .3d 10 84 , 10 85 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

Co nk li n co nt en ds th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve cred it ed W ei nb erg er’s

te st im on y

. He st res se s th at W ei nb erg er te st ifi ed th at Van W at erm ul en po in te d ou t th e

as sa il an t to hi m , bu t th at Van Wa t e r mu l e n t es ti fie d he di d no t se e who hi t hi m

. Co nk li n al so as se rts th at W ei nb erg er sa id he de ta in ed th e as sa il an t, whi le Si tt in g Bea r

te s t i f i e d t ha t a se cu rit y of

fic er de ta in ed Co nk li n. Co nk li n as se rts th at Aho ne n’s

te st im on y is in he ren tl y in cred ib le be cau se Aho ne n sa id th at he coul d id en ti fy Co nk li n

as th e as sa il an t i n t he ba r bu t n ev er i de nt ifi ed hi m in th e co ur tro om du rin g tri al an d

sa id he wou ld pro ba bl y

no t re co gn iz e th e m an at t ria l.

-3

-“ The te st fo r reject in g ev id en ce as in cred ib le i s e x t r ao rd in ari ly s tri ng en t an d

is of te n sa id to ba r rel ia nc e on ly on te st im on y as se rti ng fact s th at are ph y si cal ly

im po ss ib le .” Uni te d St at es v. Cr en sh aw , 35 9 F.3 d 97 7, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ).

Co nk li n’s ch al le ng es to cred ib il it y do no t mee t th at st an da rd

. A jury reas on ab ly

co ul d ha ve cred it ed th e te st im on y of on e or m or e wit ne ss es th at im pl ic at ed Co nk li n

as th e as sa il an t. A reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve gi ve n si gn ifi can t weig ht to

W ei nb erg er’s te st im on y

. Alt ho ug h Van W at erm ul en sa id he di d no t se e who hi t hi m , he di d ob se rv e a m an walk in g away fro m hi m —ri gh t aft er th e bl ow— sa y in g, “ I di dn ’t

m ean to

, I di dn ’t m ean to .” Van W at erm ul en as su m ed th at th e m an who “ di dn ’t m ean

to ” was th e m an who th rew th e pu nc h. A jury reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve reco nc il ed th e

te st im on y of W ei nb erg er an d Van W at erm ul en by con cl ud in g t ha t Wein be rg er sa w

Van W at erm

ul en po in t o ut th e m an who sai d h e “ di dn ’t m ean to ,” an d th at th e m an
who sai d h e “ di dn ’t m ean to ” was th e as sa il an t.

The jury al so co ul d ha ve reco nc il ed te st im on y ab ou t ho w Co nkl in was de ta in ed

aft er th e in ci de nt

. W ei nb erg er te st ifi ed th at he fo ll owe d Co nk li n an d to ld hi m to st op , bu t whe n Co nk li n de ni ed hi tt in g Van W at erm ul en , W ei nb erg er cal le d fo r se cu rit y ,

an d se cu rit y of

fic ers de ta in ed Co nk li n. W ei nb erg er’s te st im on y on th is po in t is th us

no t in co ns is te nt wit h Si tt in g Bea r’s te st im on y th at se cu rit y of fic ers de ta ined Co nklin

. Aho ne n’s te st im on y li ke wis e is no t in he ren tl y in c r e di bl e. A jury reas on ab ly co ul d

ha ve be li ev ed th at Aho ne n wit ne ss ed th e as sa ul t in t h e b a r a nd po in te d ou t th e

as sa il an t to sec ur it y

in Apri l 20 10

, bu t als o th at Aho ne n— ha vi ng se en th e as sa il an t

on ly on ce du rin g a br ie f en co un te r—p ro ba bl y wou ld no t ha ve reco gn iz ed th e m an

ne arl y th ree years l at er d ur in g a jury tri al

.

The di rect an d ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce pr es en te d b y th e pr os ecu ti on was

su ffi ci en t for a reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Co nk li n

co m m it te d th e c h a rg ed of

fen se

. Co nk li n was en ti tl ed to at ta ck th e cred ib il it y of

wit ne ss es ba se d o n al le ge d in co ns is te nc ie s du rin g th e tri al

, bu t th e jury was

-4

-co nv in ced th at Co nk li n co m m it t e d th e as sa ul t, an d th at co nc lu si on was reas on ab le

ba se d o n t he ev id en ce.

C o n k l i n ’s m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e a pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie f is de ni e d

,

co ns is te nt wit h Eig ht h Ci rcu it po li cy no t to co ns id er pr o se fil in gs whe n th e ap pe ll an t

is rep r e s e n t e d b y co un se l. Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n , 59 F.3 d 76 7, 76 8 n.2 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 ). The ju dg m en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-