United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 18-40598

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ricky Allen Fackrell; Christopher Emory Cramer, 

Defendants—Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-26

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Ricky Fackrell and Christopher Cramer were convicted 

and sentenced to death for the prison murder of Leo Johns, a fellow inmate. 

They appeal their convictions and sentences on numerous grounds. We 

AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

2

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ricky Allen Fackrell and Christopher Cramer were imprisoned at 

USP Beaumont. Both were convicted of the June 2014 prison murder of Leo 

Johns. Fackrell was a lieutenant in the Soldiers of Aryan Culture (“SAC”), 

a prison gang whose members abstained from drinking, drugs, and gambling. 

Members were recruited based on their beliefs in white supremacy and 

paganism. Cramer was a general in the SAC, and Johns was a member. 

1. Fackrell

Fackrell has several previous convictions, including convictions for 

aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of a prohibited object. His prison 

record denotes several instances of misconduct including fights and property 

damage. He was also charged with the murder of a second inmate three 

months after Johns’s death. 

As to Johns’s murder, Fackrell argued that he and Cramer only agreed 

to assault Johns. Johns had been drinking and gambling in violation of SAC 

rules, and Cramer determined that he needed to be punished. Fackrell and 

Cramer took shanks into Johns’s cell and stabbed him. Fackrell argues that 

he stabbed Johns but left the cell before he died and that Cramer “finished 

Johns off.” 

At trial, Fackrell’s defense was that he neither intended to kill nor 

killed Johns. Instead, Fackrell argued that he was present while Cramer killed 

Johns, that Cramer ordered him to participate in the assault, and that they 

only planned to “touch up [Johns] a little bit.” The jury rejected Fackrell’s 

defense and found him guilty of first-degree murder.

During the penalty phase of trial, Fackrell’s mitigating evidence 

centered on his childhood. His father was an alcoholic and his mother was 

often working to support the family. They frequently moved around, and 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

3

Fackrell was bullied and abused by his father and brothers. He began 

drinking, using drugs, and committing crimes with his family when he was 

between 10 and 14 years old. 

Fackrell’s other mitigating evidence centered on his mental health 

diagnoses and ability to be reformed in structured environments like that of 

USP Florence-ADMAX (“ADX”), a maximum-security prison in Florence, 

Colorado. Fackrell was sent to ADX to await trial for Johns’s murder. 

Though individual jurors found that Fackrell had proven some 

mitigating factors, the jury sentenced him to death. 

2. Cramer

Christopher Cramer was Fackrell’s co-defendant at trial and 

sentencing. He has prior convictions for bank robbery and use of a firearm in 

relation to a crime of violence. He also has committed several instances of 

prison misconduct including assaults on other inmates. 

At trial, Cramer’s defense to Johns’s murder was that he only 

intended to assault Johns and did not intend to kill him. He argued that his 

previous visits to Johns’s cell on the day of Johns’s murder indicated that he 

lacked the intent to kill Johns. The jury rejected his argument and convicted 

him of first-degree murder.

At sentencing, Cramer’s mitigating evidence focused on his 

dysfunctional childhood and his ability to be safely housed at ADX. Cramer 

had a difficult upbringing—his mother was a prostitute and a drug addict; his 

father was a pimp and a drug dealer. His family moved frequently and slept 

in cars and parks. Due to his parents’ absence, Cramer had to care for his 

younger siblings. He stole food to feed them and “was his siblings’ hero.”

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

4

His other mitigation evidence centered on ADX’s ability to safely 

house him if he was sentenced to life. He argued that he was unlikely to ever 

leave a maximum-security prison given the severity of his crimes.

Both Defendants were convicted of first-degree murder and 

sentenced to death. They now appeal their convictions and sentences.

II. DISCUSSION

Fackrell and Cramer argue that the Government and the district court 

committed numerous errors at trial and at sentencing. We review each 

alleged error in turn.

A. Severance

Prior to trial, Fackrell and Cramer moved to sever. Fackrell requested 

separate trials, while Cramer requested separate trials, separate penaltyphase presentations, and separate penalty-phase juries. Both argue that the 

district court erred by denying their motions to sever. We disagree.

We review the denial of a motion forseverance for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 227 (5th Cir. 1990).

“Under Rule 14, ‘[i]f the joinder of offenses or defendants in an 

indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court 

may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide 

any other relief that justice requires.’” United States v. Snarr, 704 F.3d 368, 

396 (5th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 14). 

Even if prejudice is shown, severance is not required. Zafiro v. United 

States, 506 U.S. 534, 538–39 (1993). The district court still has discretion to 

grant relief. Id. at 539. “Severance is proper ‘only if there is a serious risk that 

a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants 

or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

5

innocence.’” United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 775 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(quoting Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539).

1. Fackrell’s severance arguments

Fackrell argues that the joint trial prejudiced his rights at the guilt 

phase because the Government introduced Cramer’s statements that 

implicate Fackrell in Johns’s murder. Cramer told his cellmate that Fackrell 

volunteered to go to Johns’s cell, that Fackrell jumped Johns from behind,

and that he and Fackrell killed Johns. The Government introduced the 

statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), and Fackrell 

argues that the statements were prejudicial, lacked reliability, and would not 

have been introduced against him if he were tried separately.

He also argues that the joint trial prejudiced him during the penalty 

phase because it allowed Defendants to be conflated, their mitigation cases 

to be compared, and Cramer’s personality disorder and prison assault history 

to be introduced.

Fackrell’s arguments are unpersuasive. Cramer’s statements are not 

so prejudicial as to be an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting 

them. His statements were not given in a custodial context, voiding any 

suspicion of unreliability present in other cases. See United States v. Ebron, 

683 F.3d 105, 133 (5th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, Cramer’s statements likely 

could have been introduced against Fackrell even in a separate trial as a 

statement against interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). 

Rule 14 does not mandate severance in any case, including capital 

trials. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 14. The introduction of Cramer’s previous 

offenses, mental health history, and mitigation case was not so prejudicial as 

to curtail the district court’s discretion to deny severance. Ample evidence 

of each defendant’s criminal histories and prison misconduct isin the record, 

and mere surplusage of this evidence does not compel severance. See United 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

6

States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 287 (5th Cir. 2002) (“A spillover effect, 

by itself, is an insufficient predicate for a motion to sever.”). Nor did the joint 

trial deny Defendants the right to individualized sentencing under Lockett v. 

Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978). Any conflating of the Defendants or the evidence 

against each of them was remedied by the district court’s instructions, and 

we “must presume that the jury heard, understood, and followed the district 

court’s instructions.” United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 476 (5th Cir. 

2002). 

2. Cramer’s severance arguments

Cramer’s severance arguments mirror Fackrell’s, mainly that he was 

prejudiced by evidence of Fackrell’s prior convictions and prison 

misconduct. Those arguments fail under Bieganowski as well. 

Notably, Cramer argues that he was prejudiced at sentencing when 

the Government introduced evidence of Fackrell’s involvement in a second 

prison murder. After Fackrell was charged in Johns’s murder, he was charged 

in the murder of another inmate, Ronald Griffith.1 The jury heard that only 

three months after Johns’s murder, Fackrell brutally stomped on Griffith’s 

head and said that he “didn’t really care that he stomped [Griffith] out.”

While evidence of Fackrell’s role in the Griffith murder was more 

shocking than evidence of other crimes and prison incidents, we cannot 

conclude that this evidence compels severance. The jury’s similar findings 

on the Defendants’ mitigating factors reflect the similarity between the 

Defendants’ mitigating cases rather than any confusion by the jury. Nothing 

suggests that the jury failed to follow the district court’s instructions and 

1 Griffith’s murder will be further discussed infra Section G.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

7

impermissibly considered the Griffith murder when evaluating Cramer’s 

case for life.

We find no error in the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motions 

to sever and thus affirm.

B. Mental States under 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)

After a defendant is convicted of a capital offense, the jury must 

determine whether the defendant had a requisite mental state under 18 

U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2) before sentencing him to death. Fackrell and Cramer 

argue for the first time that the Government failed to prove that they had one 

of the requisite mental states when they killed Johns. We disagree.

Since Defendants failed to raise this issue at trial, review is for plain 

error. United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 443 (5th Cir. 2004). To establish 

plain error, Fackrell must prove that “(1) there was error, (2) the error was 

plain, (3) the error affected his ‘substantial rights,’ and (4) the error seriously 

affected ‘the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.’” United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 679, 681 (5th Cir. 2007)

(quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732−734 (1993)).

18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)(A)–(D) lists four mental states. The 

Government must prove at least one mental state in § 3591(a)(2) beyond a 

reasonable doubt. It must prove that Defendants:

(A) intentionally killed the victim;

(B) intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in 

the death of the victim;

(C) intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the 

life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force 

would be used in connection with a person, other than one of the 

participants in the offense, and the victim died as a direct result 

of the act; or

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

8

(D) intentionally and specifically engaged in an act of violence, 

knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, 

other than one of the participants in the offense, such that 

participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for 

human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.

18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)(A)–(D). 

Fackrell argues that the Government did not prove that he had a 

requisite mental state when he participated in Johns’s murder. He argues that 

the jury could not have concluded that he had one of the requisite mental 

states in § 3591(a)(2)(B)– (D) because they all require actions that result in 

the death of the victim. Because the coroner did not determine which blow 

was fatal, Fackrell argues that the jury could not have determined that he was 

the but-for cause of Johns’s death. In his view, the jury convicted him of firstdegree murder because he aided and abetted in Johns’s murder, and this level 

of culpability does not demonstrate that he had a requisite mental state.

This argument fails because aiding and abetting liability does satisfy 

the requisite mental states in § 3591(a)(2)(C) and (D). See United States v. 

Williams, 610 F.3d 271, 287 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Paul, 217 F.3d 

989, 998 (8th Cir. 2000) . Even if the jury convicted Fackrell on the basis of 

aiding and abetting in Johns’s murder, that finding is a sufficient basis for 

concluding that he had the requisite mental states under § 3591(a)(2)(C) and 

(D). We thus cannot conclude that there was error, let alone plain error. We 

affirm.

C. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Statements

Fackrell and Cramer challenge several statements made by the 

Government at trial. They jointly challenge the Government’s statements 

about (1) future dangerousness and the jury’s responsibility for Defendants’ 

death sentences and (2) mitigation evidence, arguing that the statements 

violated their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. Fackrell also challenges 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

9

the Government’s statements about getting justice for the victim and the lack 

of evidence of his intent to kill Johns. 

1. Joint Challenge of Statements on Future Danger and Jury Role in Sentencing

Defendants jointly challenge the Government’s statements on future 

dangerousness and the jury’s responsibility for their death sentences. They 

argue that the Government committed misconduct by eliciting testimony 

from witnesses about their ability to be released from maximum-security 

prison and then arguing that Defendants were likely to pose future danger. 

They also argue that the Government erred by implying that an appellate 

court would review a sentence of death. We disagree.

a. Future Danger

During the penalty-phase of trial, both the Government and 

Defendants called experts on future dangerousness. Defendants called Dr. 

Gravette, and the Government called Dr. Berkebile. Both testified about 

several maximum-security inmates with no relation to this case, including

David Hammer. Hammer was originally sentenced to death, a court vacated 

his death sentence, and he was sentenced to life in a maximum-security 

prison. Hammer then killed another inmate. 

The Government’s future dangerousness argument used the experts’ 

testimony about Hammer and other inmates to suggest that even maximumsecurity prisons could not contain some inmates. The Government further 

suggested that Defendants could one day be released from maximumsecurity prison and pose further danger in a less secure prison environment.

Though the record is not clear as to whether Defendants objected to 

the statements, Defendants’ arguments fail even when reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. See Snarr, 704 F.3d at 399. 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

10

The Federal Death Penalty Act permits the introduction of 

aggravating and mitigating evidence unless “its probative value is 

outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c).

Our court has made clear just how broad that evidentiary standard is, 

concluding that “[w]here the alternative to the death penalty is life 

imprisonment, the government ‘is free to argue that the defendant will pose 

a danger to others in prison and that executing him is the only means of 

eliminating the threat to the safety of other inmates or prison staff.’” Snarr, 

704 F.3d at 394 (quoting Simmons v. S. Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 165 n.5 

(1994)). Defendants’ arguments therefore fail.

b. Jury Responsibility

Defendants also argue that the testimony about Hammer’s death 

sentence later being vacated allowed the jury to think it was not ultimately 

responsible for their death sentences.

Defendants failed to object to the testimony at trial, so review is for 

plain error. See Avants, 367 F.3d at 443.

The Government asked Dr. Gravette about David Hammer, and the 

testimony was as follows:

Question from the Government: “And [Hammer] was originally given 

a death sentence, but for some legal reasons that sentence was later 

overturned. Am I right so far?”

Answer from Dr. Gravette: “Yes ma’am.”

This testimony came up again when the Government examined Dr. Berkebile

and said Hammer “had received a death sentence [and] it was converted to 

life . . . .” Defendants argue that this testimony violated the Eighth 

Amendment by permitting the jury “to believe that the responsibility for 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

11

determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s death rests elsewhere.” 

Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 329 (1985).

This argument is incorrect because this case is distinguishable from 

Caldwell. In Caldwell, the Supreme Court vacated a death sentence after the 

prosecutor told the jury that their decision was not the final decision and that 

it would be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Id. at 325−26 (1985). Here, the 

Government’s statements are substantially different from those requiring 

reversal in Caldwell. The Government’s statements were not in error, let 

alone plain error. We affirm.

2. Joint Challenge to Mitigation Statements

Defendants challenge the Government’s statements that referred to

mitigating evidence as evidence mitigating against the crime committed, 

rather than as evidence mitigating against the imposition of the death penalty.

After Defendants presented mitigating evidence related to their childhood 

traumas, the Government responded with, 

“Well, you may very well find that that’s a true statement, that you 

find that the defense has proven that by a preponderance of the 

evidence. But does that mean that it mitigates against a sentence of 

death? Does that mean the fact that if things were different, then he 

wouldn’t have committed the crime or he wouldn’t have been in 

prison?”

Defendants did not object to this statement. The Government later asked 

whether evidence about Fackrell’s father’s drinking mitigated Johns’s 

murder. Defendants objected to that statement, but their objections were 

overruled. 

We review Defendants’ evidentiary challenges for abuse of discretion. 

See Ebron, 683 F.3d at 133.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

12

Though Defendants challenge the Government’s statements linking 

mitigating evidence to evidence that makes the crime less severe, the 

statements do not warrant reversal. In Boyde v. California, the Supreme Court 

did not reverse on similar language—that the mitigating evidence did not 

make the defendant’s crime any “less serious.” 494 U.S. 370, 385–86 (1990).

We find no error in the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion.

Furthermore, any potential error is rendered harmless by both the 

Government and district court’s curative measures. Though the 

Government made the mitigation statements described above, it also said 

that mitigation evidence “[is] not something that excuses or justifies the 

crime; but it does have to be something that mitigates the death penalty.”

Likewise, the district court’s instructions included a similar definition of 

mitigating evidence that tracks our precedent. The Government has

sufficiently demonstrated that any error is harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2).

3. Fackrell’s Challenge to Statements about Justice and Intent to Kill

Fackrell next points to the Government’s statements urging the jury 

to convict him of first-degree murder to avoid “less justice,” “half justice,” 

or “no justice” for Johns. He then points to the Government’s statement 

that “[t]here is really not any evidence to suggest that Fackrell didn’t intend 

to kill Leo Johns.” 

Since Fackrell did not object to these statements, we review only for 

plain error. See Avants, 367 F.3d at 443.

To establish plain error, Fackrell must prove that “(1) there was error, 

(2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected his ‘substantial rights,’ and (4) 

the error seriously affected ‘the fairness, integrity or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.’” Jones, 489 F.3d at 681 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 

734).

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

13

Fackrell’s argument that the statements were in plain error is 

unconvincing. Even assuming that the statements were error, we cannot 

conclude that the error was plain or affected his substantial rights. See United 

States v. Rosenberger, 502 F. App’x 389, 394−95 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he 

references to . . . achieving justice for Rosenberger’s victims fall well short of 

any realistic likelihood of prejudice.”). 

Fackrell also fails to demonstrate plain error in the Government’s 

statements that there was no evidence that he did not intend to kill Johns. 

Though the Government’s statement “could have been more artfully put,” 

it is best understood as a summary of Fackrell’s rebuttal evidence and 

therefore not in error. Moreover, any error stemming from these statements 

would not impact Fackrell’s substantial rights. See id. at 395. Fackrell’s 

argument fails, and we affirm the district court. 

D. Testimony of Two Bureau of Prisons Psychologists

Fackrell next argues that the rebuttal testimony of two Bureau of 

Prisons (“BOP”) psychologists violated his rights.

He offered various forms of mitigating evidence related to his mental 

health. He presented the records of Dr. Clemmer,2 a BOP psychologist from 

ADX who treated Fackrell after Johns’s murder (but before trial). Dr. 

Clemmer’s notes describe Fackrell’s history of depression while at USP 

Beaumont and note that USP Beaumont staff failed to respond to Fackrell’s 

requests for psychological help in February 2009, December 2014, and 

January 2015. 

2 Though Fackrell initially designated Dr. Clemmer as a testifying witness, he 

chose not to call her to testify. The Government initially objected to Fackrell’s motion to 

enter her records as evidence, but the Government ultimately withdrew its objection. 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

14

Fackrell offered testimony and evidence from psychologist Matthew 

Mendel. Mendel testified that Fackrell’s juvenile records showed that he 

attempted suicide and had a provisional diagnosis of major depressive 

disorder that went untreated. He also testified that Dr. Clemmer’s notes 

indicated that her treatment was helping Fackrell and causing “profound 

changes” in his behavior. 

Fackrell also offered testimony from Robert Johnson, who holds a 

doctoral degree in criminal justice. Robert Johnson testified that Fackrell was 

suicidal when he arrived at ADX but had received help from the ADX staff. 

He also testified that Fackrell told him that he hoped to get treatment for his 

mental health issues and move forward with his life. 

To rebut Fackrell’s mitigation evidence, the Government called Dr. 

Shara Johnson and Dr. Brown, two BOP psychologists who treated Fackrell 

while he was at USP-Beaumont. Fackrell argues that their testimony violated 

his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his Sixth Amendment 

right to counsel, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

1. Right Against Self-Incrimination

Fackrell first challenges the testimony of the BOP psychologists as

violative of his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. We 

disagree. 

Fackrell did not object to the testimony of Drs. Shara Johnson and 

Brown on the basis that they violated his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination. In fact, counsel expressly stated that “we’re not objecting to 

the government calling a rebuttal witness to say they disagree with the 

diagnosis of whatever it is they are going to say.” Though counsel objected 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

15

to the admission of Dr. Brown’s notes3 under the Sixth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments, those objections do not preserve any error based 

on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See FED. R. EVID. 

103(a)(1)(B) (“A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude 

evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party, and if the 

ruling admits evidence . . . [the party must] timely object or move to strike;

and state the specific ground . . . .”); see also United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 

473, 485−87 (5th Cir. 2010). Nor can we say that the unoffered objection was 

apparent from the context. See id.

Because no objection was made on this ground, review is for plain 

error. Avants, 367 F.3d at 443.

Dr. Shara Johnson treated Fackrell between January 2015 and August 

2016, and she testified that he had “no significant mental health disorders.” 

She also testified about his diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and his 

corresponding “pervasive disregard for the rights of others, irritability, 

aggressiveness, lack of remorse, and impulsivity.” 

Dr. Brown treated Fackrell beginning in January 2016, and she 

testified that when she met Fackrell he had “no mental health history 

whatsoever.” She also testified that Fackrell said “[his] childhood had 

nothing to do with Johns’s murder” and that his previous prison conduct 

“was funny.” 

More than merely undermining his case for life, Fackrell argues that 

the use of his statements to the BOP psychologists violated his Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination because he was not warned that 

his statements to the psychologists could be used against him at trial. See 

3 Counsel specifically objected to Dr. Brown’s documentation of her encounters 

with Fackrell while he was housed at USP-Beaumont for Johns’s murder trial.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

16

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 468 (1981) (“Because respondent did not 

voluntarily consent to the pretrial psychiatric examination after being 

informed of his right to remain silent and the possible use of his statements, 

the State could not rely on what he said to Dr. Grigson to establish his future 

dangerousness.”). Since he did not receive Miranda4 warnings before he 

spoke to the doctors during his treatment, he concludes that the use of those 

statements violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

We disagree with Fackrell’s argument that the Government violated 

his Fifth Amendment right by calling the BOP psychologists as rebuttal 

witnesses. Under United States v. Hall, the Government may use its own 

expert witnesses to rebut a defendant’s experts when the defendant places 

his mental health at issue. 152 F.3d 381, 398 (5th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other 

grounds by United States v. Martinez–Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000). “This 

rule rests upon the premise that ‘[i]t is unfair and improper to allow a 

defendant to introduce favorable psychological testimony and then prevent 

the prosecution from resorting to the most effective and in most instances 

the only means of rebuttal: other psychological testimony.’” Id. (alteration in 

original) (quoting Schneider v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 1988)).

This case is distinguishable from Smith because Fackrell put his 

mental health at issue by introducing evidence and testimony from Clemmer, 

Mendel, and Robert Johnson. See Smith, 451 U.S. at 472 (“[A] different 

situation arises where a defendant intends to introduce psychiatric evidence 

at the penalty phase.”). Their testimony described his past and current 

struggles with depression, suicide, and other untreated diagnoses. Fackrell 

offered the evidence as mitigating evidence, and the Government was 

entitled to rebut that evidence using its own witnesses. 

4 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

17

We find no Fifth Amendment error in the Government’s use of 

rebuttal testimony from the BOP psychologists. 

2. Right to Counsel

Like his Fifth Amendment Miranda argument, Fackrell argues that his 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not have 

counsel when he spoke with the BOP psychologists. 

Fackrell objected to the admission of evidence on the grounds of the 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

We review de novo Fackrell’s objection to the testimony on the basis 

of the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 333 (5th 

Cir. 1998).

Because the doctor’s statements were used against Fackrell at trial, he 

compares his treatment to a pretrial government expert evaluation. Without 

counsel present (or a valid waiver of the right to counsel), he concludes that 

his rights were violated.

In Powell v. Texas, the Supreme Court explained that a defendant’s 

Fifth Amendment right “precludes the state from subjecting him to a 

psychiatric examination concerning future dangerousness without first 

informing the defendant that he has a right to remain silent and that anything 

he says can be used against him at a sentencing proceeding.” 492 U.S. 680,

681 (1989) (citing Smith, 451 U.S. at 461−69). The Court further explained 

that “the Sixth Amendment right to counsel precludes such an examination 

without first notifying counsel that ‘the psychiatric examination [will] 

encompass the issue of their client’s future dangerousness.’” Id. (alteration 

in original) (quoting Smith, 451 U.S. at 471).

The BOP psychologists served as rebuttal witnesses to Fackrell’s own 

evidence about his mental health. Fackrell points to nothing that indicates 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

18

that the doctors’ evaluations were carried out in order to assess his future 

dangerousness, as was the case in Smith and Powell. Instead, the doctors’ 

examinations were routine and in keeping with their duty of care to all 

inmates. We can find no error and thus affirm the district court’s denial of 

Fackrell’s objection based on the Sixth Amendment.

3. Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

Fackrell next argues that even if the BOP psychologists’ testimony 

was permissible under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, their testimony 

violated the common law psychotherapist-patient privilege. We disagree.

Though the application of the psychotherapist-patient privilege is a 

legal question, Fackrell did not raise this issue before the district court. We 

therefore review for plain error. Avants, 367 F.3d at 443.

The Supreme Court recognized the psychotherapist-patient privilege 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 in Jaffee v. Redmond. 518 U.S. 1, 8−10 

(1996). The Court described the importance of the privilege in fostering trust 

and candor between psychotherapists and their patients. Id. at 10. The 

benefits of the privilege are great because “[t]he psychotherapist privilege 

serves the public interest by facilitating the provision of appropriate 

treatment for individuals suffering the effects of a mental or emotional 

problem.” Id. at 11. Even still, the Court noted that the privilege must give 

way in certain circumstances. Id. at 18 n.19.

Though the psychotherapist-patient privilege is an important feature 

of our legal system, we cannot conclude that the district court committed 

plain error in permitting the doctors’ testimony.

First, it is not clear that the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists 

during the sentencing phase of federal capital trials. “Information is 

admissible regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

19

of evidence at criminal trials except that information may be excluded if its 

probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, 

confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Section

3593(c) thus favors admission of all evidence except that which creates the 

risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. 

The psychotherapist-patient privilege prevents the admission of 

communications between psychotherapists and patients, and the privilege 

applies where the Federal Rules of Evidence apply after Jaffe

(notwithstanding cases where state law compels a different result). But 

without the parameters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we cannot conclude 

that the privilege applies in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Without the 

privilege limiting the admission of the doctors’ testimony, the evidence could 

only be excluded for one of the reasons listed in § 3593(c), and we cannot say 

that the district court plainly erred by permitting this testimony.

Second, even if we assume that the privilege applies (and that Fackrell 

did not waive the privilege), we cannot conclude that the district court’s error 

was plain. A plain error is one that is “so clear or obvious that ‘the trial judge 

and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the 

defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it.’” United States v. Narez–

Garcia, 819 F.3d 146, 151 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Hope, 545 

F.3d 293, 295–96 (5th Cir. 2008)).

Fackrell’s best argument for applying the psychotherapist-patient 

privilege comes from two cases from our sister circuits. The first is Koch v. 

Cox, 489 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Koch says that the psychotherapistpatient privilege can be waived when the party claiming the privilege “relies 

upon the therapist’s diagnoses or treatment in making or defending a case.” 

Id. at 389. Here, Fackrell argues that he did not rely on Dr. Shara Johnson or 

Dr. Brown’s treatment in making or defending his case. The two doctors 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

20

testified for the Government on rebuttal, so they did not aid him in making 

or defending his case. 

Following Koch, the Second Circuit decided In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117 

(2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit agreed with Koch in Sims, adding that “a 

party’s psychotherapist-patient privilege is not overcome when his mental 

state is put in issue only by another party.” Id. at 134 (emphasis added).

However, neither of those cases addresses Fackrell’s argument. 

Fackrell’s mental state was put in issue by his own trial strategy because his 

own experts testified about his mental health history. Even if that evidence is 

categorized as rebuttal evidence to the Government’s evidence of 

aggravating factors, that argument is undercut by the fact that Fackrell 

offered mitigating factors related to his history of depression. The record 

supports the conclusion that Fackrell put his mental state at issue through his 

choice of expert witnesses and mitigating evidence submitted to the jury. 

Though both Koch and Sims are merely persuasive authority, they 

offer some guidance. Fackrell’s claim would likely fail under both Koch and 

Sims. He has not cited, nor have we found, support for his position that the 

Government could not rebut his mental health evidence with the testimony 

of the BOP psychologists when he put his mental health at issue. We thus 

affirm, concluding that the district court did not commit plain error under 

the psychotherapist-patient privilege by permitting the BOP psychologists to 

testify.

E. Mental Health Rebuttal Witnesses

Cramer challenges the Government’s use of mental health rebuttal 

witnesses, arguing that the testimony violated Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 12.2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We disagree.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

21

Because Cramer did not object at trial, review is for plain error. See 

United States v. Rice, 607 F.3d 133, 138–39 (5th Cir. 2010).

Cramer presented mental health experts during the sentencing phase. 

The experts focused on his difficult childhood and the impact of that 

childhood on his development. The Government presented a rebuttal 

witness, Dr. Jill Hayes. The Government agreed to limit her testimony to 

only direct rebuttal of Cramer’s experts and to exclude all mention of Johns’s 

murder. However, Dr. Hayes testified about statements Cramer allegedly 

made that indicate his lack of remorse for his crimes.

Cramer argues that her testimony went beyond pure rebuttal and thus

violated Rule 12.2 and his Fifth Amendment rights. Much like crossexamination is generally limited to the topics inquired about on direct 

examination, Cramer argues that her rebuttal should have been tied to his 

mitigation evidence—evidence of his childhood and resulting traumas. See, 

e.g., Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87, 97 (2013) (limiting cross-examination to 

topics from direct examination).

He further argues that his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination was violated when Dr. Hayes testified about his statements 

without his permission. Likewise, he argues that her testimony violated Rule 

12.2 by violating the reciprocity principle embedded in the rule that limits 

rebuttal to the topics raised by the defendant.

We can find no plain error in permitting Dr. Hayes’s testimony. Her 

testimony gave a broad overview of Cramer’s life and did not stray so far from 

the topics Cramer raised as to constitute plain error. Cramer offered 

testimony about his childhood and his present-day experiences, and Dr. 

Hayes’s testimony was similarly broad. Her testimony about Cramer’s 

reaction to Johns’s murder is no broader than the testimony of Cramer’s own 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

22

expert. We find no error either under the Fifth Amendment or under Rule 

12.2 and thus affirm.

F. Excluding Evidence of the Johns Family’s Suit

The district court denied Defendants’ request to introduce evidence 

from the Johns family’s civil suit against a BOP warden. They argued that 

details of the suit were relevant to rebut the Government’s evidence related 

to the victim-impact aggravator. We agree with the district court.

The Federal Death Penalty Act permits the introduction of 

aggravating and mitigating evidence unless “its probative value is 

outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c).

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. 

Snarr, 704 F.3d at 399.

The Johns family sued a BOP warden, alleging that the BOP was liable 

for Johns’s wrongful death. In the warden’s answer urging the court to 

dismiss the suit, he said that Johns was primarily responsible for his death 

because he joined the SAC and defied the rules prohibiting drinking and 

gambling. In Defendants’ trial, the Government argued that Johns was not 

responsible for his murder and that Defendants murdered him to maintain

their reputations.

The district court did not err in excluding this evidence as irrelevant 

and likely to confuse the jury. The individual warden’s response in a lawsuit 

does not equate to the BOP’s own statement on Johns’s culpability, as the 

BOP was not a party to the civil suit. The evidence is therefore not relevant 

and the relationship between the two cases is so attenuated as to risk 

confusing the jury. Defendants’ argument therefore fails.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

23

G. Excluding Evidence related to the Griffith Murder

During the penalty phase of trial, the Government presented evidence 

of Fackrell’s involvement in the murder of Ronald Griffith. Fackrell 

attempted to introduce evidence that the Government offered a plea deal to 

his co-defendant in the Griffith murder. The district court denied Fackrell’s 

request to introduce the evidence. Fackrell argues that the exclusion was in 

error and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

The district court’s decision to exclude information is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Snarr, 704 F.3d at 399. If there was error, reversal is 

required unless the Government can show it was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 252 (5th Cir. 1998).

After Johns’s murder, Fackrell was charged with the deadly assault of 

Ronald Griffith, a fellow inmate and alleged sex-offender. Fackrell allegedly 

participated in this assault with another inmate and SAC member, Erik 

Rekonen. In the prosecution for Griffith’s murder, the Government agreed 

to a ten-year sentence for Rekonen but pursued the death penalty against 

Fackrell. The Government and Rekonen’s attorney met about a potential 

plea in 2017. The record reflects that the Government sought to make a deal 

with Rekonen in exchange for his testimony against Fackrell. 

The district court excluded the mention of Griffith’s murder during 

the guilt phase of Johns’s murder trial but permitted its mention during the 

sentencing phase. The Government presented Griffith’s murder as 

aggravating evidence, and Fackrell argued that evidence of Rekonen’s plea 

deal should have been permitted as mitigating evidence. Fackrell asserts that 

Rekonen’s plea deal was relevant because it demonstrated that his equally 

culpable co-defendant would not receive the death penalty. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3592(a)(4) (“In determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed on 

a defendant, the finder of fact shall consider any mitigating factor, including

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

24

. . . [whether] [a]nother defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the 

crime, will not be punished by death.”). He also asserts that Rekonen’s lesser 

sentence reflects the BOP’s acknowledgment that prison politics force 

inmates to violently assault alleged sex-offenders. 

Though excluding mitigating evidence may violate a capital 

defendant’s right to due process, Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97 (1979), we 

cannot conclude that the district court’s exclusion was in error. 18 U.S.C. § 

3592(a)(4) allows defendants to put on mitigating evidence of their codefendant’s culpability—in trials for the related offense. Here, Fackrell can 

point to nothing in the statute nor case law that commands district courts to 

permit mitigating evidence about co-defendants from other trials. The statute 

refers to other defendants “in the crime,” and we conclude that the crime 

referenced in the statute is the crime for which Fackrell faced the death 

penalty, Johns’s murder. In doing so, we follow our sister circuit. See United 

States v. Gabrion, 719 F.3d 511, 524 (6th Cir. 2013) (“This factor does not 

measure the defendant’s culpability itself, but instead considers—as a moral 

data point—whether that same level of culpability, for another participant in 

the same criminal event, was thought to warrant a sentence of death.”)

(emphasis added).

Evidence of Rekonen’s plea could also have been admitted as “catchall” mitigation evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(8). Any error in 

excluding this evidence is harmless given that the jury already saw videos of 

Griffith’s assault and heard evidence of Fackrell’s involvement. We cannot 

say that evidence of Rekonen’s plea would have “diminish[ed] [his] 

culpability or otherwise mitigate against a sentence of death.” Id. 

Furthermore, jurors found several mitigating factors related to 

Griffith’s murder even without the evidence of Rekonen’s plea deal. Six 

jurors found it mitigating that officers placed Griffith near other inmates 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

25

knowing that he may be assaulted. Another six jurors found that Fackrell and 

other inmates had to play prison politics to stay safe. This further 

demonstrates that any perceived error would be harmless. 

We affirm the district court’s exclusion of evidence of Rekonen’s plea 

deal related to Griffith’s murder.

H. Acquitted Conduct as Evidence of Future Dangerousness

Cramer challenges the Government’s use of his role in a 2012 assault 

charge as evidence of future dangerousness. Cramer was ultimately acquitted 

of the 2012 assault, and he argues that the Government violated his Fifth 

Amendment protection against double jeopardy. We disagree.

Cramer did not object at trial. Review is for plain error. Avants, 367 

F.3d at 443.

“[A]n acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the Government 

from relitigating an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof.” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 

349 (1990). “Extraneous offenses offered at the punishment phase of a capital trial need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Vega v. Johnson, 149 

F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 1998).

Under Dowling and Vega, the Government was permitted to introduce 

evidence of Cramer’s conduct related to the 2012 assault for which he was 

acquitted. At trial for the 2012 assault, the Government could not prove that 

he committed the assault beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Government was not required to prove the 2012 assault beyond a reasonable doubt 

to mention it at the punishment phase of this trial. See id.

Thus, there was no error in the Government’s mention of Cramer’s 

charge for the 2012 assault. We affirm.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 25 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

26

I. Categorical Approach and Fackrell’s Prior Convictions

The Government alleged four statutory aggravators in its notice of 

intent to seek the death penalty against Fackrell, including the 18 U.S.C. § 

3592(c)(2) aggravator for use of a firearm and the § 3592(c)(4) aggravator for 

inflicting death or serious bodily injury. Fackrell has previous federal 

convictions for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and 

possession of a prohibited object. He also has a state law conviction for 

aggravated assault.

The district court did not use the categorical approach in determining 

that his previous convictions fit within § 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4). Fackrell 

argues that the district court should have used the categorical approach to 

compare the elements of his prior convictions with the elements of the 

offenses described under §§ 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4). He argues that his 

convictions do not fall within the ambit of §§ 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4), and thus 

his sentence must be reversed. We disagree.

Since the district court’s decision to reject the categorical approach 

was a legal conclusion, we review it de novo. United States v. Jackson, 549 

F.3d 963, 969 (5th Cir 2008). The analysis is subject to harmless-error review

as well. See United States v. Torrez, 869 F.3d 291, 313 (4th Cir. 2017).

Our circuit has not yet addressed whether the categorical approach is 

the appropriate analysis under the Federal Death Penalty Act. Both sides 

present persuasive arguments, but we need not answer the question to 

resolve this issue. Even if we assume that the categorical approach applies

and thus the § 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4) aggravators were invalid, the sentence 

can be affirmed if it would have been imposed without the invalid 

aggravators. Jones, 132 F.3d at 251−52.

The Government argues (and Fackrell concedes) that his prior 

convictions were admissible at the selection phase as non-statutory 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 26 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

27

aggravators. Fackrell argues that the jury necessarily would have put more 

weight on statutory aggravators than non-statutory aggravators, such that 

reversal is warranted for re-sentencing. Nothing in our precedent compels 

such a result, so Fackrell’s argument fails.

J. Fackrell’s Hobbs Act Claim

Fackrell also challenges the characterization of his Hobbs Act robbery 

conviction as a statutory aggravator under 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c). He argues 

that the district court erred by permitting the Government to use his 

conviction as a § 3592(c) aggravator after United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 

2319 (2019).

Fackrell preserved this argument at trial, and review is de novo. United 

States v. Hebert, 131 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 1997).

The § 3592(c) aggravator includes convictions for violent crimes, and 

Hobbs Act robbery is a violent crime. United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 275

(5th Cir. 2017). The Government listed Fackrell’s Hobbs Act conviction as 

the basis for the aggravator given its characterization as a crime of violence. 

Fackrell argues that this characterization is erroneous after Davis, where the 

Supreme Court held that the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) was 

unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019). He also argues that 

his Hobbs Act conviction was not based on a use of force because it can be 

committed by threatening harm to an intangible economic interest.

Fackrell’s first argument is foreclosed by our decision in Buck. Hobbs 

Act robbery is a crime of violence in this circuit and therefore qualifies as an 

aggravator under § 3592(c). See Buck, 847 F.3d at 275.

Fackrell’s second argument also fails. Hobbs Act extortion may be 

accomplished without the use of force. See United States v. Nadaline, 471 F.2d 

340, 344 (5th Cir. 1973). This says nothing of Hobbs Act robbery for which 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 27 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

28

Fackrell was charged, and we find no error in listing Fackrell’s Hobbs Act 

robbery conviction as an aggravator under § 3592(c).

K. Jury Instructions on Mitigating Evidence

Fackrell challenges the district court’s penalty-phase jury 

instructions on mitigating evidence, arguing that the two-step instruction for 

finding mitigating factors violates 18 U.S.C. § 3593(d). We disagree.

Fackrell preserved his objections to the verdict form. This Court 

“review[s] a challenge to jury instructions for abuse of discretion, ‘affording 

the trial court substantial latitude in describing the law to the jurors.’” United 

States v. Ortiz-Mendez, 634 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting United 

States v. Orji-Nwosu, 549 F.3d 1005, 1008 (5th Cir. 2008)).

Section 3593(d) provides that “[a] finding with respect to a mitigating 

factor may be made by 1 or more members of the jury, and any member of the 

jury who finds the existence of a mitigating factor may consider such factor 

established . . . .” The district court’s instruction told the jury that it could 

“find that the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence the 

existence of [a mitigating] factor and that it is mitigating.” 

The district court’s instruction requires jurors to find that a fact was 

proven and then find that the fact was mitigating. Fackrell argues that this 

instruction permitted the jury to disregard mitigating evidence because it 

could find that a fact was proven but then conclude that the fact was not 

mitigating.

Fackrell’s argument is undercut by 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a), which 

requires jurors to consider “any mitigating factor.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a). 

Whether jurors first evaluated whether Fackrell proved the existence of some 

facts and then determined they were mitigating or answered both questions 

at once, the court’s instructions were proper. See United States v. Mikhel, 889 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 28 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

29

F.3d 1003, 1055 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[R]egardless of whether the jury found that 

the proffered mitigating factors were factually unsupported or that they 

simply did not justify a lesser sentence, the final result is the same.”).

We affirm the district court’s denial of Fackrell’s objection to the jury 

instruction on mitigating factors.

L. Marshalling the Evidence in Jury Instructions

Defendants argue that the district court impermissibly “marshalled 

the evidence” on the jury instructions for future dangerousness. We 

disagree.

Defendants failed to object to the instructions on this basis at trial. 

Review is for plain error. Avants, 367 F.3d at 443.

The district court’s oral and written jury instructions defined future 

dangerousness and listed several pieces of evidence that the Government 

offered as future dangerousness evidence. The instructions did not list any of 

the defense’s evidence against future dangerousness. 

Though once common, the practice of judges marshalling the 

evidence “has fallen into widespread disfavor.” United States v. Mundy, 539 

F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2008). Courts should refrain from commenting on the 

evidence at trial and should avoid one-sided summaries or comments. See 

Quericia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933).

In United States v. Coonce, the Eighth Circuit rejected a defendant’s 

claim that the district court had improperly summarized the evidence of 

future dangerousness in favor of the government. 932 F.3d 623, 637 (8th Cir. 

2019). The pattern jury instructions language used “as evidenced by” to 

describe pertinent facts related to the aggravators, and the Eighth Circuit 

cautioned district courts against removing that language from the instruction. 

Id. at 638. 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 29 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

30

Here, the pattern instructions also included “as evidenced by” and 

summarized the evidence. Such language is meant to aid and focus the jurors’ 

analysis on particular pieces of evidence rather than presenting them an 

open-ended question. See id. at 637. 

We cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred by focusing 

the jury’s analysis on particular pieces of evidence. In fact, the district court 

listed Defendants’ own evidence of mitigating factors in its instructions as 

well, further proof that the court did not err by giving a one-sided summary 

of the evidence.

We affirm, finding no error in the district court’s oral and written jury 

instructions.

M. Jury Question on Non-unanimity

Defendants challenge the district court’s supplemental jury 

instructions. They argue that the district court refused to instruct the jurors 

after they asked about the consequences of a non-unanimous verdict. We 

disagree.

Supplemental jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion in 

light of the entire charge. United States v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522, 544–45 (5th 

Cir. 2012).

Prior to voir dire, Defendants requested a preemptive instruction on 

the consequence of a split verdict, but the court denied their requests under 

Jones v. United States. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth 

Amendment does not require every jury to be told of the effect of nonunanimity. See 527 U.S. 373, 383 (1999).

Later during the sentencing jurors’ deliberations, they sent a note to 

the court asking, “What is the process if we are not unanimous with our 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 30 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

31

verdict?” The district court sent a note back to the jurors instructing them to 

“[p]lease continue your deliberations.”

“When evaluating the adequacy of supplemental jury instructions, we 

ask whether the court’s answer was reasonably responsive to the jury’s 

question and whether the original and supplemental instructions as a whole 

allowed the jury to understand the issue presented to it.” United States v. 

Stevens, 38 F.3d 167, 170 (5th Cir. 1994).

Defendants argue that even if the district court’s initial refusal to 

instruct on non-unanimity was correct under Jones, Jones does not control 

where the jurors directly asked about non-unanimity. They argue that the 

district court’s response should have been given in open court and should 

have answered the jurors’ question.

We cannot conclude that the district court erred by responding to the 

jurors’ question in writing. See United States v. Strauch, 987 F.2d 232, 242−43 

(5th Cir. 1993). Nor can we conclude that the court abused its discretion by 

not providing a non-unanimity instruction in response to the jurors’ 

question. Congress did not require such an instruction among the mandatory 

instructions that the district court must give. See Jones, 527 U.S. at 383 (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 3593(f)).

Even beyond Jones, we can find no error where the district court’s 

instructions explained that each juror must consider the evidence 

individually to render a verdict. The district court instructed the jurors that 

the verdict must represent the judgment of each of them and that they each 

must decide the case for themselves. The fact that many different groupings 

of jurors found various mitigating factors for Defendants further 

demonstrates that jurors acted individually. 

We affirm the district court’s supplemental jury instruction to the 

sentencing jury.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 31 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

32

N. Incomplete Record

Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the record on appeal, arguing 

that missing components impair their ability to have a full appeal. We 

disagree.

The record on appeal includes transcripts of proceedings. FED. R.

APP. P. 10(a). If the transcript of a hearing or trial is unavailable, Rule 10(c) 

permits the appellant to prepare part of that record from their recollection. 

FED. R. APP. P. 10(c). The district court did not permit Defendants to 

recollect parts of the record they contend are missing, and they argue that 

they do not have a substantial part of the record on appeal.

Where the defendant has new counsel on appeal, the court will reverse 

if (1) a missing portion of the record is substantial and significant, and (2) the 

trial court’s reconstruction is not a substantially verbatim account. See United 

States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1124–25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Defendants assert that the record is missing vital conferences, 

including the conference about the testimony of Elizabeth Rose, the 

Government’s final witness in the guilt phase of trial. Rose was in a holding 

cell near Fackrell and Cramer’s cells during their trial. She testified that she 

heard them making fun of the prosecutor’s opening argument, laughing 

about stabbing Johns 74 times, and Fackrell saying that “[i]t didn’t feel like 

that many [stabbings] when it was happening.” 

Rose was represented by an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the 

Eastern District of Texas, as was Cramer. She was facing a life sentence for 

conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute methamphetamine. She 

contacted her attorney and told him that she wanted him to tell the 

Government about what she heard. Rose’s attorney petitioned to withdraw 

from her case given the conflict of interest created by her desire to testify 

against Cramer. Defendants’ counsel believes that the court discussed 

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 32 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

33

Rose’s testimony in an unrecorded conference in chambers and that the 

missing record prejudices their defense. Counsel also believes that the parties 

discussed the potential conflict of interest facing the Federal Public 

Defender. 

Defendants also identify the conference about the penalty-phase jury 

charge as another important proceeding that was unrecorded. The district 

court indicated that it wanted to meet with the parties to decide on the 

penalty-phase instructions. No recording of the conference exists. Several of 

counsel’s proposed mitigating instructions did not appear in the instructions, 

and Defendants now argue that the court ruled on their proposed instructions 

at the unrecorded conference. 

Defendants arguments fail because the discussion of Rose’s testimony 

was not a “hearing or trial” within the meaning of Rule 10. Nor was the jury 

charge conference a “session of the court” pursuant to the Court Reporter’s 

Act because it did not occur in open court. United States v. Jenkins, 442 F.2d 

429, 438 (5th Cir. 1971). Neither the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

nor the Court Reporter’s Act compel reversal here. Furthermore, 

Defendants have not demonstrated that these omissions are substantial or 

significant. Defendants’ arguments fail. 

O. Cumulative Reversal

Defendants’ final argument is that even if no individual error is 

reversible, the cumulative effect of the errors warrants reversal.

An appellate court may reverse a conviction by aggregating otherwise 

non–reversible errors that combine to deny the defendant’s right to a fair 

trial. United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 343−44 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Because we do not find that the district court made any errors, 

cumulative reversal is unavailable.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 33 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 18-40598

34

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM the sentences and 

convictions of Ricky Fackrell and Christopher Cramer.

Case: 18-40598 Document: 00515776969 Page: 34 Date Filed: 03/11/2021