United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 04-41219

______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHANNON WAYNE AGOFSKY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

_____________________

Before: DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

In this direct criminal appeal, Shannon Agofsky challenges his

two capital murder convictions and two death sentences, which arise

out of a single killing. We vacate the convictions because, under

the circumstances of this case, the dual murder convictions

violated Agofsky’s double jeopardy rights. We remand for the

Government to elect which conviction and death sentence should

remain.

I. BACKGROUND

The Government charged Agofsky with two types of capital

murder. Count 1 of the indictment charged Agofsky with

premeditated murder by a federal prisoner serving a term of life

imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1118, 1111 (2000 & 2003
2

Supp.) (“Murder by a Federal Frisoner”). Count 2 of the indictment

charged Agofsky with premeditated, first degree federal murder, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (2000 & 2003 Supp.) (“Federal

Murder”).

The two murder charges stemmed from a single death. The

evidence adduced at trial showed that Agofsky murdered Luther

Plant, an inmate incarcerated with Agofsky at the federal

penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas. Agofsky killed Plant by striking

him to the floor and then repeatedly stomping his head and neck

into the concrete. The jury returned a guilty verdict on both

counts of the indictment.

At the sentencing phase, the Government introduced evidence of

Agofsky’s prior murder conviction. He had killed a bank president

during the course of an armed robbery by tying him to a chair and

throwing him into a lake. The Government also presented the jury

with evidence that Agofsky had engaged in prior serious misconduct

while in prison and bragged about his violent tendencies. The jury

found several statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors,

including that the murder was especially heinous, cruel, or

depraved. After considering a variety of mitigating factors, the

jury found that a death sentence was warranted as to each count of

conviction. In this appeal, Agofsky challenges his convictions and

sentences on a number of grounds. 
1 Since the Government does not contend that the

premeditation element charged in the Count 1 of the indictment

was superfluous for double jeopardy purposes, we do not consider

the complex issues that might be raised by such an argument here.

3

II. DISCUSSION

A. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Agofsky first argues that the two-count indictment charged him

twice for the same offense, thereby violating the Double Jeopardy

Clause. The parties agree that we should review de novo. They

also agree that Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932),

controls our analysis of whether the offenses are the same for

double jeopardy purposes. “Under the Blockburger test, each

offense must contain an element not contained in the other; if not,

they are the same offense . . . and double jeopardy bars subsequent

punishment or prosecution.” United States v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852,

863 (5th Cir. 1999).

1. ANALYSIS

As charged by the Government in this case, both Federal Murder

and Murder by a Federal Prisoner require proof of (1) an unlawful

killing (2) with malice aforethought and (3) premeditation.1 The

parties agree that Murder by a Federal Prisoner contains a unique

additional element, i.e., that the defendant be a federal prisoner

serving a life sentence. The only dispute is whether Federal

Murder contains an element not contained in Murder by a Federal

Prisoner. 
2 The Murder-by-a-Federal-Frisoner statute does not

explicitly state the same jurisdictional element as the Federal

Murder statute, though the former does provide that the murder

must occur while the defendant is “confined in a Federal

correctional institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1118.

4

The Government argues that Federal Murder’s jurisdictional

element—that the crime must occur “within the special maritime and

territorial jurisdiction of the United States”—is distinct from any

jurisdictional element found in Murder by a Federal Prisoner.2 See

18 U.S.C. § 1111(b). The Government argues further that such a

distinct jurisdictional element renders two crimes different for

double jeopardy purposes. Because we reject the second contention,

we do not consider the first.

The Government’s argument overlooks that we have held that

jurisdictional elements do not count for double jeopardy purposes.

In United States v. Gibson, 820 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1987), this

Court addressed a double jeopardy challenge to convictions under

two federal robbery statutes. One statute proscribed “robbery of

one having lawful custody of mail or other property of the United

States.” Id. at 697. The other prohibited “robbery within the

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United

States.” Id. The Gibson Court agreed with the Government that the

two robbery statutes each contained a distinct element. Id. at

698. Gibson nonetheless held that conviction under both statutes

violated the Double Jeopardy Clause:

We do not believe . . . that the differences [between the
5

statutes] here would satisfy the intended purpose of the

Blockburger test. In Blockburger itself, the two facts

to be proven constituted two evils that Congress sought

to combat . . . . By contrast, in the instant case one

of the two facts to be proven under one section but not

the other is strictly jurisdictional: that the crime

occurred within United States jurisdiction. As one

writer on the subject has stated, “when offenses differ

only because they have different jurisdictional bases

they should not be punished cumulatively.” A

jurisdictional fact, while a prerequisite to prosecution

under a particular statute, is not in itself an evil that

Congress seeks to combat.

Id. (internal citation omitted). 

The jurisdictional element that the Gibson Court refused to

consider for double jeopardy purposes is identical to the element

the Government relies on in the case at bar. 

We have some concern with the reasoning of Gibson. See United

States v. Harrison, 64 F.3d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting

Gibson because it “ignores the fact that Congress may have strong

interests in treating crimes occurring within the jurisdiction of

the United States differently from those occurring elsewhere”).

However, Gibson is still binding on this panel. See United States

v. Avants, 278 F.3d 510, 518 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002). We must follow

Gibson “until either this court sitting en banc or the Supreme

Court says otherwise.” See Cardenas v. Dretke, 405 F.3d 244, 253

(5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we hold that Federal Murder, as

charged in this indictment, is the same offense for double jeopardy

purposes as Murder by a Federal Prisoner. Accordingly, we vacate

Agofsky’s convictions for Federal Murder and Murder by a Federal
6

Prisoner; on remand the district court should enter a guilty

verdict, as the Government may elect, of either Federal Murder or

Murder by a Federal Prisoner. See United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d

149, 179 (5th Cir. 1988) (on reh’g).

2. REMEDY

Agofsky maintains that neither of his death sentences can

stand in light of this double jeopardy violation, citing United

States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 1999). We disagree. 

Agofsky’s reliance on Causey is misplaced. After finding a

double jeopardy violation, Causey did vacate each of the three

death sentences at issue there. However, such a course was

required in Causey primarily because “[t]he jury did not make

separate recommendations concerning the appropriate penalties for

each count of conviction.” Id. at 423. Rather than addressing

each death-eligible count separately, the jury simply made one

generalized finding that “the aggravating factors sufficiently

outweighed any mitigation to justify a sentence of death.” Id. at

412. By contrast, in the case at bar, the jury made separate

recommendations concerning the appropriate penalty for each count

in the indictment. In light of the jury’s distinct recommendations

on each count, Causey is inapposite.

The separate sentencing recommendations not only distinguish

Causey but also explain why Agofsky’s case falls under the general

rule that reversal of one conviction on double jeopardy grounds
7

does not require resentencing on any remaining count. No such

resentencing is required on a surviving count so long as it is

“clear” that the invalid conviction “did not lead the district

court to impose a harsher sentence” on the surviving count. United

States v. Narviz-Guerra, 148 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1998); United

States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, it is

clear that Agofsky’s conviction for either murder did not lead the

jury to recommend a harsher sentence for the other, inasmuch as the

verdict forms strictly segregated the jury’s sentencing decision

between the two counts. Accordingly, the district court should

reenter on remand, pursuant to the jury’s previous sentencing

verdict, a death sentence as to the murder conviction the

Government elects to retain.

B. THE JURY NOTE AS EVIDENCE OF AN ARBITRARY FACTOR 

Agofsky’s second claim is that his death sentence was imposed

under the influence of an arbitrary factor. During the punishment

phase deliberations, the jury sent a note to the district court as

follows: “If a verdict of life is imposed, will the jury be polled

as it will for the death penalty[?]” With Agofsky’s agreement, the

district court sent a response note. It advised the jury, “After

a verdict is returned but before the jury is discharged, the court

must on a party’s request, or on its own, poll the jurors

individually.” Agofsky never complained below regarding the jury

note or the court’s response. He now contends, however, that the
8

note shows that some jurors feared being polled individually due to

possible negative public reaction to imposition of a life sentence.

This fear, he alleges, was an arbitrary factor that tainted the

jury’s decision to recommend death. 

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although the parties agree that Agofsky failed to preserve his

claim, they dispute the standard of review. In particular, the

parties disagree over how to interpret Jones v. United States, 527

U.S. 373 (1999). However, we need not decide which standard is

correct because Agofsky’s arbitrary-factor claim fails even under

de novo review.

2. ANALYSIS

The Federal Death Penalty Act requires a court of appeals to

vacate a death sentence if it “finds” that the sentence was imposed

“under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary

factor.” 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2) (2000) (emphasis added). In light

of the statutory language requiring a “find[ing]” of arbitrariness

before granting relief, and in accord with persuasive authority, we

hold that the circumstances must show that an arbitrary factor

“most likely” influenced the sentence. See United States v.

Johnson, 223 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2000). The jury note pointed to by

Agofsky does not make such a showing.

Other explanations for the jury note seem equally plausible as

Agofsky’s theory that the jurors voted for death to avoid negative
3 In this regard, the Government points out that the note was

sent in the morning only two minutes after deliberations

reconvened for a new day and posits that the note may simply

reflect questions that occurred to one or two jurors while they

were adjourned for the night.

9

public reaction. Perhaps the jurors were considering evading the

unanimity requirement and rendering a secretly-divided verdict for

life, which they could accomplish if they would not be polled

individually for a life verdict. Alternatively, perhaps potential

public reaction was on the minds of the jurors, but they ultimately

refused to let their personal concerns impact their duty to follow

the law and base their verdict on the evidence.3 Neither of these

explanations seem materially more or less likely than Agofsky’s

theory. In any event, Agofsky’s speculations as to the

significance of the jury’s note do not suffice for us affirmatively

to find an arbitrary influence. Thus, Agofsky’s claim fails.

C. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT CRIME WAS ESPECIALLY HEINOUS, 

CRUEL OR DEPRAVED 

Agofsky’s next claim of error in his sentencing is that the

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he

committed the murder in an “especially heinous, cruel, or depraved

manner in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the

victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(6) (2000) (listing this as a

statutory aggravator). “As with any criminal verdict, [this Court]

reviews jury findings of aggravating factors by asking whether,

after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
10

government, any rational trier of fact could have found the

existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable

doubt.” United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 481 (5th Cir.

2002).

As indicated by the statute, a murder may be especially

heinous, cruel, or depraved if it involves either torture or

serious physical abuse. The jury’s verdict form, however, only

mentioned serious physical abuse and omitted any reference to

torture. Therefore, the question for us reduces to whether there

was sufficient evidence of heinousness, cruelty, or depravity in

the context of serious physical abuse.

For serious physical abuse to be aggravating in a murder case,

a defendant must inflict suffering or mutilation above and beyond

that necessary to cause death. See United States v. Hall, 152 F.3d

381, 414–15 (5th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by United

States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 310 (2000) (approving a

jury instruction which so provided). Furthermore, a defendant must

intend such gratuitous violence for the murder to involve serious

physical abuse. See id. (approving an instruction which provided

that “the defendant must have specifically intended the abuse apart

from the killing”); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 324

(5th Cir. 1998) (stating that the “especially heinous, cruel, and

depraved” factor focuses on the defendant’s “actions and intent”).

In this case, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable
11

doubt that Agofsky intended to inflict (and in fact inflicted) more

abuse than necessary to cause Plant’s death. Agofsky’s attack

involved continued stomping of Plant’s face and neck. The jurors

heard eyewitness testimony that Agofsky stomped Plant’s head and

neck into the concrete “around 11” times. A medical examiner later

confirmed that Plant’s injuries were the result of “repeated

blows.” Furthermore, the corrections officer who witnessed the end

of the assault testified that Agofsky continued stomping Plant even

after Plant lost consciousness. While Agofsky delivered his final

blows, Plant did not put his hands up to defend himself; rather, he

was “just . . . laying down face up on his back on the ground.”

Cf. United States v. Robinson, 367 U.S. 278, 289 n.18 (5th Cir.

2004) (“[T]he evidence that Robinson riddled Reyes’s body with

bullets after he was on the ground provides probable cause to

believe that the murder was committed in an especially heinous,

cruel, or depraved manner . . . .”). 

The assault was so violent that it splattered Plant’s blood

and other bodily fluids on the floor and wall of the exercise area.

Medical evidence adduced at trial revealed that Plant suffered the

following injuries: a crushed neck (i.e., numerous broken neck

bones), large abrasions on the back of his head, hemorrhaging

around both eyes, a broken nose, a large bruise across his nose,

abrasions and lacerations around his mouth, a broken jaw, one lost

tooth, three other broken teeth, cheek abrasions, and internal
12

bleeding into his trachea, lungs, esophagus, and stomach. Based on

the evidence above, the jury rationally could have found that

Agofsky intended to inflict, and did inflict, greater suffering or

mutiliation than necessary to cause death. 

Agofsky makes two main arguments in opposition to this

conclusion. He points to Government testimony that the entire

assault lasted only a matter of seconds. He also represents that

he voluntarily stopped the assault while Plant was still alive

(though apparently already brain dead). Agofsky argues that these

two circumstances belie an intent to cause needless injury or

mutilation beyond that required to kill. These arguments cannot

surmount the high standard-of-review hurdle on appeal. First,

violence need not be protracted to be gratuitous. See United

States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1262 (10th Cir. 2000)

(holding that a murder victim could be tortured within the meaning

of the Federal Death Penalty Act without being subjected to

prolonged harm). Thus, a rational jury could have rejected

Agofsky’s time-line inference and found that he inflicted serious

physical abuse despite the brevity of the attack. Second, the jury

rationally could have found that Agofsky ceased the attack only

after delivering abuse over and above that necessary to cause

death. For the reasons above, Agofsky’s challenge to the jury’s

aggravating-factor finding fails. 
4 Agofsky asserts additional claims solely to preserve them

for further review. Inasmuch as Agofsky concedes that these

claims are foreclosed by precedent binding on this Court, we do

not address them.

13

D. INCONSISTENT VERDICTS

Finally, we find no merit in Agofsky’s argument that his

conviction or sentence for Federal Murder is invalid because the

jury may have rendered inconsistent verdicts as between the guilt

and punishment phases on that count. See Dunn v. United States,

284 U.S. 390 (1932); United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 69

(1984) (“The rule [permitting inconsistent verdicts] established in

Dunn v. United States has stood without exception . . . .”)4

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we VACATE Agofsky’s convictions to prevent double

jeopardy. See Goff, 847 F.2d at 179. We REMAND to the district

court WITH INSTRUCTIONS to impose, at the Government’s election, a

guilty verdict and death sentence for either Federal Murder or

Murder by a Federal Prisoner. See id; Narviz-Guerra, 148 F.3d at

534.