United States v. Amifa Knight
57 V.I. 941, 89 Fed. R. Serv. 1290, 700 F.3d 59 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2J1.3(c), a sentencing enhancement for perjury 'in respect to a criminal offense' is appropriate where the defendant knew or had reason to know at the time of the perjury that their testimony concerned such a criminal offense.
Facts:
- On May 12, 2008, Amon Thomas and Shadrock Frett were involved in a gunfight and both were hospitalized.
- On the evening of May 20, 2008, Amifa Knight, a hospital admissions clerk and girlfriend of Thomas's brother, Halik Milligan, accessed the hospitalized Frett's electronic patient records.
- That same evening, Knight had telephone conversations with Milligan, who had previously asked her if she could obtain Frett's room number.
- At approximately 3:50 a.m. on May 21, 2008, six masked gunmen entered the hospital using an employee swipe card, located Frett, and shot him to death.
- During an interview on January 26, 2009, Knight denied knowing Frett's room number, speaking with Milligan, or disclosing Frett's location.
- In a subsequent interview on January 27, 2009, Knight admitted that she looked up Frett's room number at Milligan's request and gave it to him, knowing there was a plan to kill Frett.
- At a suppression hearing on April 16, 2009, Knight testified under oath that she accessed Frett's records multiple times to provide the room number to Frett's friends and family, and that Milligan was a friend of Frett's who wanted to visit him.
Procedural Posture:
- Amifa Knight was indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on six counts of making false statements to a federal officer.
- Knight filed a motion to suppress statements she made following her arrest.
- At the suppression hearing, Knight testified under oath about the night of the murder.
- The Government issued a superseding indictment, adding three counts of perjury based on her hearing testimony and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.
- Knight filed a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence of the shootings, which the trial court denied.
- A jury acquitted Knight on the false statement and conspiracy charges but convicted her on the three perjury counts.
- The trial court denied Knight's post-verdict motion for acquittal as untimely.
- The trial court sentenced Knight to 36 months, applying a sentencing enhancement for perjury in respect to a criminal offense.
- Knight appealed her conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the sentencing enhancement for perjury 'in respect to a criminal offense' under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(c) apply when a defendant's false testimony is given during a pre-trial hearing for charges related to that criminal offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Roth, J.
Yes, the sentencing enhancement for perjury 'in respect to a criminal offense' applies. The court adopted the standard that perjury is 'in respect to a criminal offense' if the defendant knew or had reason to know their testimony concerned that offense. The court found Knight met this standard because her perjury occurred at a suppression hearing for charges related to Frett's murder, the questions directly pertained to the night of the murder, and she was already aware of the government's theory that she had facilitated the murder by providing Frett's location to Milligan. The court also held that evidence of the shootings was properly admitted as it was relevant to establish context and motive for the perjury and was not unfairly prejudicial, especially since the jury acquitted Knight on the related conspiracy charge. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Knight's motion for acquittal because it was filed 85 days late, depriving the district court of jurisdiction to consider it.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns the Third Circuit with several other circuits by adopting the 'knew or had reason to know' standard for applying the perjury sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(c). This clarifies that a defendant's awareness of the connection between their false testimony and an underlying crime is sufficient to trigger a significantly higher sentence, treating the perjury as an act of obstruction similar to being an accessory after the fact. The ruling strengthens the government's ability to seek harsher penalties for perjury that undermines criminal investigations, even if the defendant is not convicted of the underlying offense.
