Denial of motion to sever two defendants’ trials; Fed.R.Crim.P. 14(a); Zafiro v. United States; Admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s redacted statement; The Confrontation Clause; Bruton v. United States; Richardson v. Marsh; Gray v. Maryland; United States v. Vasilakos; Admissibility of photos; FRE 403; United States v. Sassanelli; “Unfair prejudice”; United States v. Mendez-Ortiz; United States v. Tolbert (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions for attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery; Taylor v. United States; United States v. Clark; United States v. Ostrander; Aiding & abetting; Rosemond v. United States; United States v. Davis; Sufficiency of the evidence that two of the defendants used or carried a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; Sentencing; Procedural reasonableness; 18 USC § 3553(a) factors; United States v. Perez-Rodriguez; USSG § 3B1.2(b); United States v. Daneshvar; United States v. Brown; Substantive reasonableness; United States v. Greco; United States v. Higgins; Cruel & unusual punishment; U.S. Const. amend. VIII; United States v. Young; Getsy v. Mitchell; United States v. Abdulmutallab; Sentence within the statutory maximum; United States v. Moore; A life sentence for a person between 18 & 21; Graham v. Florida; Pike v. Gross

The court affirmed defendants’ convictions and sentences, holding that defendants-Sommerville and Sherrill’s confrontation rights were not violated by the admission of non-testifying codefendant-Poindexter's statement about the crime at defendants’ joint trial because their names were redacted and neutral terms substituted. Defendants were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and of the knowing use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, or aiding and abetting those crimes. Sommerville was also convicted of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and of causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He and Sherrill argued that the district court erred by denying their motion to sever their trials, claiming that they were denied an opportunity to cross-examine Poindexter because he exercised his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The court held that the district court properly handled the situation by redacting Sherrill’s and Sommerville’s names and replacing them with a “neutral terms like ‘someone,’” thus avoiding a Bruton violation. As to the admission of photos that could confirm Sherrill’s gang membership, the court held that they were properly admitted to “help[] establish the relationship between the codefendants, as well as their identities,” and that their probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice. It next held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendants’ convictions for attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery where there was evidence of an effect on interstate commerce. Further, there was sufficient evidence to convict Sherrill and Poindexter as aiders and abettors on the basis they actively planned or participated in the robbery. As to their sentences, the court first held that Sherrill was properly denied a two-level adjustment for his allegedly “minor role” in the robbery. His substantive reasonableness argument failed where the court held that the district court “reasonably balanced the § 3553(a) factors in imposing its chosen sentence.” Poindexter’s sentence was also reasonable. As to Sommerville, he “planned the robbery, convinced others to participate, shot [two people], and subsequently threatened other witnesses with violence if they spoke with law enforcement about the crime.” The court noted that “‘[a] sentence within the statutory maximum . . . generally does not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment.’” It opined that this was the case here. But a future case may consider “whether a life sentence would be cruel and unusual or substantively unreasonable if a young-adult defendant’s criminal history and other conduct do not outweigh his youth.”