FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
APRI L 28, 2010

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 0 9- 11 24 5

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

D.C. Dock et No. 0 6- 00 12 7- CR-T-2 4- TGW

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

VINCENT JAMES KROC KA,
a.k .a. Da Mo ns te r,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 28 , 20 10 )

Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARTIN an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

A fed eral gr an d jury is su ed a twen ty-fiv e co un t i n d i c t ment ag ai ns t Vin cen t

Ja m es Kro ck a. It in cl ud es c o u n t s of m ai l th reat in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( c),

ex to rti on at e m ai l th reat in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( b)

, an d wit ne ss ta m pe rin g invi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(1 ). He was co nv ic te d on fo ur co un ts of m ai l th reat

,

fo ur co un ts of ex to rti on at e m ai l th reat

, an d s i x co un ts of wit ne ss ta m pe rin g. He

ap pe al s t ho se co nv ic ti on s an d h is sen te nc e.

Kro ck a rai se s a n u mber of is su es on ap pe al ; we ad dr es s in de ta il on ly hi s

co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

as to co un ts twen ty-fou r an d twen ty-fiv e o f th e in di ct m en t, whi ch al le ge wit ne ss

ta m pe rin g. Bec au se we co nc lu de th at in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce was pr es en te d at tri al fo r

1

a rat io na l juro r to fin d th at Kro ck a at te m pt ed to in ti m id at e, th reat en , or ot he rwis e

in flu en ce th e te st im on y of th e wit ne ss de sc rib ed in th os e co un ts , we ho ld th at he is

en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al as t o t ho se two co un ts

.

Co un t t wen ty-fou r of

th e in di ct m en t al le ge s t ha t Kro ck a:

di d kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y us e in ti m id at io n, th reat en , an d co rru pt ly

pe rs ua de an ot he r pe rs on , an d at te m pt to do so , wit h th e in te nt to in flu en ce, de la y , an d pr ev en t th e te st im on y of th at pe rs on in an of fic ia l

pr oc eed in g, th at is

, an ap pe aran ce as a wit ne ss in th e tri al of Vin cen t J.
Kro ck a, et al, Ca se Num

be r 8: 06 -CR- 00 12 7- T-23 TGW , in th e Uni te d

Krock a also contends: (1) that the court err ed in deny ing his motion to dismiss the 1

indictment beca

use he w as denie d his constituti onal right to a speedy trial; (2) that the court err ed
in ad mitti ng , under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidenc e of prior crimes; (3) that the court

err ed in admitting evidenc e of phone calls betwee n Kroc ka and his sons to which the alleg ed targ et of his threa ts was not privy ; (4) that the court err ed in deny ing his motion for acquittal on sufficie ncy of the evidenc e g rounds as to counts 5, 10, 11, 13-17, and 20-23; (5) that the court failed to instruct the j ury that mental abuse is not a form of bodily injury ; (6) that the court improperly g rouped his
convictions for sentenc ing purposes; and (7) that the court err ed in failing to reduc e his sentenc e due
to the fac t tha t he suffe red from reduc ed mental c apac ity . After revie w of the rec ord, and with the
benef it of oral ar g ument, we c onclude that these arg uments are without merit.

2St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t f o r t he Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a, in th at th e de fen da nt at te m

pt ed to sen d, an d sen t a le tt er to hi s so n st at in g in pa rt:

“ . . . D on ’t let th e go ve rn m en t scar e y ou or b ul ld oz e y ou

. St an d u p t o t he m . Tell th em to fuc k o ff . . . [”]

“

. . . I ne ed y ou to st op m om fro m sh owi ng up at co ur t an d

te st ifyin g ag ai ns t m e. Can y ou im ag in e he r di sl oyalt y to al l
of us . It i s i n y ou r ha nd s. I tru st y ou an d I a m de pe nd in g

on y ou for m

y free do m .”

(R.1 -3 4 a t 1 9.)

Co un t t wen ty-fiv e o f th e in di ct m en t al le ge s t ha t Kro ck a:

di d kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y us e in ti m id at io n, th reat en , an d co rru pt ly

pe rs ua de an ot he r pe rs on , an d at t e m pt to do so , wit h th e in te nt to in flu en ce, de la y , an d pr ev en t th e te st im on y of th at pe rs on in an of fic ia l

pr oc eed in g, th at is

, an ap pe aran ce as a wit ne ss in th e tri al of Vin cen t J.
Kro ck a, et al, Ca se Num

be r 8: 06 -CR- 00 12 7- T-23 TGW , in th e Uni te d
St a t e s Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a, in th at th e de fen da nt att em

pt ed to se nd

, an d sen t a le tt er to hi s so n st at in g in pa rt:

“

. . . You m

us t st op m om fro m co m in g to co ur t an d

te st ifyin g ag a i n s t m e, an d if y ou are co nt act ed by th e
go ve rn m en t, do n’t ta lk to th em bu t refe r th em to y ou r la wy er . . . sam e fo r Dan , tel l h im ![”]

( Id

. at 20 .) At tri al

, th e Gov ern m en t in tro du ced th e le tt ers in th ei r en ti ret y , bu t di d no t

pr es en t ot he r ev id en ce th at di rect ly su pp or ts th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in co un ts

twen ty-fou r an d t wen ty-fiv e.

3W e co nc lu de th at th e wit ne ss de sc rib ed in th es e co un ts of th e in di ct m en t is Je ff

Kro ck a, the de fen da nt ’s so n. The in di ct m en t ch arg es th at Defen da nt Vin cen t Kro ck a 2

w i l l fu ll y in ti m id at ed

, th reat en ed

, an d co rru pt ly pe rs ua de d Je ff wit h an in te n t t o

in flu en c e , p r e v e nt

, an d de la y Je ff’s te st im on y

. And

, th e jury was in st ru ct ed th at it

co ul d fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty on ly if it was pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at :

(1 ) th e pe rs on de sc rib ed in th e in di ct m en t was a wit ne ss or sc he du le d to be a wit ne ss ;

(2 ) th e de fen da nt us ed in ti m id at io n, th reat s, or co rru pt pe rs ua si on or at te m pt ed to do

so ag ai ns t su ch pe rs on as ch arg ed ; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt di d so kn owi ng ly an d

wil lfu ll y wit h th e in te nt to in flu en ce, de la y , or pr ev en t th e te st im on y of th e wit ne ss

.

(R.7 -1 23 at 95 .) The jury was in st ru ct ed th at : to “ in ti m id at e” m ean s to in te nt io na ll y

sa y or do so m et hi ng th at wou ld cau se a pe rs on to be fear fu l of bo di ly ha rm ;

“ co rru pt ly” m ean s to do so m et hi ng kn owi ng ly an d di sh on es tl y wit h a sp eci fic in te nt

to su bv ert or un d e r mi n e th e in te gr it y of a pr oc eed in g; an d th at to do so m et hi ng

These counts do not expli citly name J eff Kroc ka as the target o f the alleg ed witness 2 tampering

. Eac h count identifies and quotes from a letter Def endant Kroc ka wrote to J eff

. The letter
identifi ed in count twenty -five was also addre ssed and mailed to J eff

, but the letter identified in

count t wenty -four was addressed and m ai led t o Def endant Krocka ’s s on Dan. The identit y of t he
witness said to be tampere d with is ambig uous at best, but be cause both of the letters wer e written

to J eff

, we conclude that these counts char g e that Def endant Kroc ka attempted to interfe r e with J eff ’s testimony

. Be cause we reve rs e Def endant Kroc ka’s conviction for count twenty -four on other

g rounds, we do not a ddress whether the court plainly err ed in f ailing to dismiss this c ount beca use it fails to state an off

ense.

4“ kn owi ng ly co rru pt ly,” a pe rs on m us t be co ns ci ou s of hi s wro ng do in g. ( Id

. at 95 -9 6.)

No o bjec ti on was m ad e at tri al to th es e jury ins tru ct io ns

.

Afte r rev ie w of th e le tt ers of fer e d t o s up po rt th e al le ga ti on s of wit ne ss

ta m pe rin g, we co nc lu de th at no rat io na l juro r co ul d in te rp ret th e le tt ers as at te m pt in g

to in ti m id at e, th reat en , or co rru pt ly pe rs ua de Je ff Kro ck a in or de r to in flu en ce, de la y ,

or pr ev e n t h i s t e s ti m on y

. The le tt er of fere d to su pp or t th e al le ga ti on s of co un t

twen ty-fou r ad vi se s Je ff th at he m ay be su bp oe na ed to gi ve co pi es to th e Gov ern m en t

of al l of th e le tt ers Defen da nt Vin c en t Kro ck a ha d writ te n to hi m , a nd it warn s Je ff

th at he m ay be as ke d t o t e s ti fy be fo re a fed eral gr an d jury. It go es on to di rect Je ff

to in fo rm th e de fen da nt ’s at to rn ey if he is su bp oe na ed an d to “ [d ]o ex act ly as he te ll s

y ou .” (Go v’s Ex. 24 .) The le tt er al so ad vi se s Je ff th at “ [y ]ou ha ve y ou r own rig ht to

pr iv acy in y ou r m ai l th at y ou rece iv e,” an d it en co ur ag es hi m t o “s t a n d up to ” th e

Gov ern men t

. ( Id

. ) A rat io na l juro r wou ld li ke ly in te rp ret th es e st at em en ts as an

at te m pt by th e de fen da nt to ad vi se hi s so n of hi s le ga l rig ht s. The se st at em en ts do no t

th reat en or in ti m id at e, no r are th ey an at te m pt to “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de ” Je ff, as th os e

te rm s are de fin ed by th e jury in st ru ct io ns , to de la y or al te r hi s te st im on y

. Mo reo ve r,

no th in g in th e le tt er of

fere d by th e Gov ern m en t to pr ov e th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in

co un t twen ty-fiv e co ul d be co ns tru ed as a n a t t e mp t to in ti m id at e, th reat en , or

co rru pt ly pe rs ua de Je ff to de la y or al te r hi s te st im on y

. The si x- pa ge le tt er di sc us se s

5pe rs on al m at te rs un rel at ed to Defen da nt Kro ck a’s up co m in g tri al

. The on ly m en ti on

of th e tri al is on e st at em en t en co ur ag in g Je ff to “ st op Mo m fro m co m in g to co ur t an d

te st ifyin g ag ai ns t m e.” (Go v’s Ex. 25 at 5.) Thi s co u l d n o t b e in te rp ret ed as an

at te m pt by D efen da nt Kroc ka to in flu en ce, d el ay , or p rev en t Jef f’s tes ti m on y

.

The Gov ern m en t arg ue s, on ap pe a l

, t h a t th e le tt ers co ul d be co ns tru ed as

ha vi ng th ree in te nd ed reci pi en ts

, Je ff, Mrs

. Grace Kro ck a , a n d th e de fen da nt ’s so n

Dan

. And , i t arg ue s th at th e le tt ers co ul d b e in te rp ret ed as a n a tt em pt to en co ur ag e

th e so ns to pr ev en t or in flu e n c e Grace Kro ck a’s te st im on y

. W e ag ree; st at em en ts

su ch as “ st op Mo m fro m c o mi n g t o c o ur t an d te st ifyin g ag ai ns t m e” co ul d be

co ns tru ed as an at te m

pt to cau se th e so ns to pr ev en t Grace fro m te st ifyin g. Bu t, th e

co un ts at is su e do no t al le ge th at th e le tt ers were de li ve red to an y on e ot he r th an th ei r

in te nd ed reci pi en t, an d th e co un ts do no t al le ge th at th e de fen da nt in te nd ed th e le tt ers

to affe ct Grace Kro ck a’s te st im on y

. Rat he r, th ey ch arg e th at th e de fen da nt at te m pt ed

to in flu en ce, pr ev en t, or de la y Je ff’s te st im on y

. And

, th e jury was in st ru ct ed th at th e

de fen da nt co ul d be fo un d gu il ty on ly if it was pr ov ed th at th e d e f e n d a n t us ed

in ti m id at io n, th reat s, or co rru pt pe rs ua si on w i t h t h e in te nt to in flu en ce, de la y , or

pr ev en t t he tes ti m on y

of t he wit ne ss de sc rib ed in th e in di ct m en t.

Afte r vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t, we

co nc lu de th at no rat io na l tri er of fact wou ld ha ve fo un d al l th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of

6co un ts twen ty-fou r an d twen ty-fiv e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

Eckh ar dt

, 46 6 F.3 d 93 8, 94 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). The refo re, we ho ld th at th e co ur t erre d

in de nyin g Defen da nt Kro ck a’s m ot io n fo r ju d g men t of acq ui tt al

. W e rev ers e hi s

c o n v i c t io ns as to co un ts twen ty-fou r an d twen ty-fiv e of th e in di ct m en t, affi rm hi s

co nv ic ti on s as to th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

, an d va cat e hi s se nt en ce. W e rem an d th e cas e

to th e di s tri ct co ur t fo r res en te nc in g, bu t le av e to th e di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t

whe th er t o h ol d a ne w sen te nc in g h eari ng

.

AFFIR MED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; SENTENCE VAC ATED;

AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

7