concluding evidence supported conviction of conspiracy in violation of § 241 where, although the defendant did not participate in the arson of an African-American home, he had made statements such as, “if that black son of a bitch [re-jbuilt ... across the street from me ... I’d burn it down”
How later courts described this case
- concluding evidence supported conviction of conspiracy in violation of § 241 where, although the defendant did not participate in the arson of an African-American home, he had made statements such as, “if that black son of a bitch [re-jbuilt ... across the street from me ... I’d burn it down”
- holding that evidence of arson, racial slurs, and comments about “niggers” in the neighborhood was sufficient for conviction under § 3631
- affirming a conviction under § 3631 where the defendant burned a black family’s home while it was still under construction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The defendant has filed a forceful petition to rehear attacking the Court’s intellectual honesty in sustaining the conviction in the court below. The Court remains unconvinced that the conviction should be reversed.
In response to the defendant’s insistence that Brown’s testimony concerning Castile’s prior arson is inadmissible, we would point out that the issue at trial was whether White sought Castile’s help in burning his neighbor’s house. White’s knowledge of Castile’s previous conduct gives rise to an inference that this knowledge prompted White to seek Castile’s help which in turn supports a second inference that they joined together to cause the arson. Thus, White’s knowledge of Castile’s past gives rise to an inference, when combined with other evidence, that the two did in fact commit the crime. “Knowledge” under rule 404(b) may be of a fact that is part of a chain of inferences that tends to prove an element of the offense.
Similarly, the check kiting and American Express fraud tend to show that White and Castile owed each other favors which would lead them to cooperate with each other in the crime charged.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 52 admonishes the Courts of Appeals to sustain the judgment of the trial court in criminal cases unless a substantial error has been made which would affect the outcome of the criminal trial. Our review of the record, and reconsideration of the case upon petition to rehear, convinces us that no such serious error was committed which affected the outcome of the trial.
Accordingly, the petition to rehear is denied.