Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Mothersill

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
87 F.3d 1214 (1996)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Pinkerton doctrine, a member of a conspiracy is criminally liable for a substantive offense committed by a co-conspirator if the offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiratorial agreement, even if the member did not participate in or have knowledge of the specific offense.


Facts:

  • Beginning in 1988, Patrick Howell, Michael Morgan, Egnatius Johnson, and others operated a large-scale crack cocaine distribution conspiracy across several southern states.
  • The conspiracy was characterized by violence; in August 1991, Patrick Howell and Michael Morgan murdered a drug dealer named Alfonso Tillman during a robbery.
  • Patricia Clarke and Paul Howell (Patrick's brother) assisted in cleaning the car used in the Tillman murder.
  • Patrick Howell threatened to kill his girlfriend and her family if she informed authorities about the Tillman murder.
  • In October 1991, Patrick Howell was incarcerated, and Paul Howell assumed a supervisory role in the drug operation.
  • Concerned that Michael Morgan's girlfriend, Tammie Bailey, might cooperate with law enforcement regarding the Tillman murder, Paul Howell constructed a pipe bomb to kill her.
  • Paul Howell concealed the bomb inside a microwave oven, which was gift-wrapped and dispatched for delivery to Bailey.
  • On February 1, 1992, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper James Fulford stopped the vehicle transporting the package, arrested the driver, and discovered the gift-wrapped box during a search.
  • When Trooper Fulford opened the package, the bomb detonated, causing his death.

Procedural Posture:

  • The government filed a third superseding indictment against Patrick Howell, Paul Howell, and other co-conspirators in federal district court.
  • Following an eight-week jury trial, the Appellants were convicted on multiple counts, including drug and RICO conspiracies.
  • Several Appellants were specifically convicted for the murder of Trooper Fulford under the Pinkerton co-conspirator liability theory.
  • The district court sentenced the Appellants to terms of life or 'life-plus' imprisonment.
  • The Appellants appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the murder of a law enforcement officer by a pipe bomb, intended by one co-conspirator to silence a potential witness, a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a large-scale and violent drug trafficking conspiracy, such that other major participants in the conspiracy can be held criminally liable for the murder under the Pinkerton doctrine?


Opinions:

Majority - Moore, J.

Yes. The murder of Trooper Fulford was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the drug trafficking conspiracy, and therefore, the Appellants' convictions under the Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability are proper. The court applies the precedent set in United States v. Alvarez, which extends Pinkerton liability to reasonably foreseeable but originally unintended substantive crimes. The court found that this was not a 'nickel-and-dime' operation but a substantial drug conspiracy where violence was a routine practice, as evidenced by the prior Tillman murder and the frequent use of weapons to protect the conspirators' interests. Given the violent nature of the enterprise, it was reasonably foreseeable that deadly force would be used to further the conspiracy's goals, including silencing a potential witness. The court concluded that because the Appellants were all 'more than minor' participants, holding them liable for the murder does not violate due process.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and applies the Eleventh Circuit's broad interpretation of Pinkerton co-conspirator liability established in United States v. Alvarez. It demonstrates that even a seemingly attenuated or bizarre act, such as murder by a pipe bomb intended for a witness, can be deemed a 'reasonably foreseeable consequence' of a violent criminal enterprise. The ruling solidifies the principle that major participants in a conspiracy characterized by routine violence assume the risk of liability for a wide range of violent acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the scheme. This strengthens prosecutors' ability to hold high-level conspirators accountable for violent outcomes they did not directly perpetrate, making it difficult for them to insulate themselves from the predictable consequences of their criminal agreement.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Mothersill (1996) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Mothersill