Opinion ID: 717611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Danny Ray Reeves

Text: 14
15 Upon being asked whether he had ever bought any vehicles from Danny Ray, prosecution witness Tommy Hoskins responded, On advice of my attorney and under the Fifth Amendment, I'll have to refuse to answer any questions. The district court denied Danny Ray's immediate motion for a mistrial. 16 We review for abuse of discretion a district court's refusal to grant a mistrial. See United States v. Quinn, 543 F.2d 640, 650 (8th Cir.1976). We have held that a mistrial may be warranted when a prosecutor calls a witness to the stand with advance knowledge that the witness will invoke the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 650. In such a case, we must consider the prosecutor's motive and the likelihood of the jury's drawing unwarranted inferences against the defendant. In the present case there is no evidence that the prosecutor knew that Hoskins would invoke the Fifth Amendment. The prosecutor's apparent motive in calling Hoskins was to prove that Danny Ray had sold Hoskins a stolen vehicle with a salvage title. In any event, Danny Ray suffered no prejudice regarding his involvement with Hoskins, as he was acquitted on the one count involving Hoskins. Moreover, given the abundance of testimony at trial against Danny Ray, it seems unlikely that the jury would have in any way been unduly affected by Hoskins' invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, we find no error in the district court's refusal to grant a mistrial.
17 Several days after the trial, counsel for co-defendant James Caldwell, who was tried with Lynn and Danny Ray, spoke with a defense witness who claimed to have witnessed certain juror misconduct. Later, at Caldwell's sentencing, his attorney heard of two other incidents of alleged juror misconduct, whereupon he moved for a new trial on Caldwell's behalf. The district court denied Danny Ray's request to join in Caldwell's motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to do so because Danny Ray's notice of appeal had already been filed. 18 The district court could properly have exercised jurisdiction over Danny Ray's request to join in the motion for a new trial. Although district courts are prohibited from granting a motion for a new trial while an appeal is pending, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, they are not prohibited from denying such a motion or from certifying an intention to grant the motion to this court, which can then entertain a motion to remand the case. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). See also 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 557 pp. 338-340 (2d ed.1982). Because the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, however, and thus has not had the opportunity to review the motion for a new trial, we will not consider the merits of this claim. See United States v. Boberg, 565 F.2d 1059, 1062 (8th Cir.1977).
19 Finally, Danny Ray argues that the district court erred in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines. In addition to a nine-level increase based upon the value of the vehicles stolen, Danny Ray's base level was increased another two levels pursuant to section 2B6.1(b)(2) upon a finding that he was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property. An increase of four more levels resulted from the finding that he was a leader and organizer of this criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The Pre-Sentence Investigation Report noted that the factors considered in granting the section 3B1.1 increase included Danny Ray's leadership and organization of the enterprise. Danny Ray argues that both the section 2B6.1(b)(2) and the section 3B1.1(a) increases were premised on the same conduct--his ownership of Reeves Body Shop. Although we agree that Danny Ray's position as owner of Reeves Body Shop--the conduct relevant under section 2B6.1(b)(2)--also facilitated his leadership role in the conspiracy, it did not require such a role. Danny Ray could have run an illegal re-tagging operation in which stolen vehicles were received and sold without directing his employees to steal the vehicles that he would later sell. Thus, section 3B1.1(a) does not double count; rather it merely holds Danny Ray accountable for conduct beyond that considered under section 2B6.1(b)(2).