United States v. Rentfrow

In United States v. Rentfrow, No. 23-60054 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions of two defendants for their attempted murder of a fellow inmate. On appeal, the defendants raised several changes, each of which was rejected by the Fifth Circuit.

For background, both defendants are members of a white supremacist gang, and trial evidence showed that one — at the behest of the other — had stabbed another inmate 13 times as a way to earn membership in the gang. The victim sustained life-threatening injuries but survived.

Ruling 1: The district court did no err by allowing two uniformed troopers to be present in the courtroom during one witness’s testimony. that witness was a former gang member who admitted to committing murder and other acts of violence on behalf of the gang, and who said that death is the punishment for treason against the gang. Given those facts, it was not error to permit increased security during his testimony.

Ruling 2: The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing testimony that death is the punishment for treason against the gang, and that testimony did not violate the district court’s order that Government witnesses could not testify that they were scared to testify because of possible repercussions. If anything, the Fifth Circuit explained, one witness’s testimony that he had also testified previously against the gang indicated that he was not scared to testify.

Ruling 3: The district court did not err by admitting two photos of someone a Government witness had murdered on behalf of the gang. The Fifth Circuit has previously affirmed admission of “shocking” and “gruesome” photos when they had “nontrivial probative value.,” such as helping prove overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy or lending support to testimony. Here, the photos were not overly gruesome and the district court sustained an objection to a third photo that was described as the most gruesome.

Ruling 4: The district court did not err in its handling of a juror note indicating that two jurors had discussed their fear of serving as jurors. The court conducted a thorough investigation, questioned the jurors about their ability to follow the court’s instructions, and received assurances from the jurors that they could fairly evaluate the evidence and follow the court’s instructions.

Ruling 5: The Confrontation Clause was not violated by testimony that one witness had spoken to one of the defendants in prison, several months after the attack. The second defendant argued under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) that this violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because it introduced a testimonial statement by a non-testifying co-defendant. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that the statement was not testimonial because “statements from one prisoner to another” are “clearly nonestimonial.” See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 825 (2006).