U.S. v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504 (Essay Sample)

U.S. v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504
Name
Institutional Affiliation
U.S. v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504
Judges
Tjoflat .M
Kravitch .N
Clark. S
Kravitch.F
Parties
The parties of the case were the United States of America as the Plaintiff-Appellee and Eugene Milton Clemons (alias "Gene' or "Dean") with DedrickGermond Smith (alias ‘Derick) as the appellants. The case no. was 93-6328. It was held in the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit on September 22, 1994
Facts
The appellants, Eugene Clemons, and Dedrick Smith were found guilty for the murder of federal agent, George Douglas Althouse, who was performing his official duties. Clemons and Smith violated 18 U.S.C under the sections 1111 and 1114. Further, Clemons was found guilty of using and carrying a firearm during the commission of the violent crime, and, therefore, violated 18 U.S.C. under the section 924 ©. Both convictions were affirmed. In this case, the primary point of concern is the definition of ‘official duties ‘in Section 1114 of the same clause.
Prior Proceedings
During the trial, the testimonies showed that Dedrick Smith had informed many people that he required an engine for his car (Z-28 Camaro). Before the murder of the federal agent, Clemons, Smith and Reed were present at a shopping center in search of an appropriate car for Smith. They were unsuccessful in their mission, and they drove to the highway where Clemons saw Z-28 Chevron at a service station. Clemons proceeded to assault one occupant of the car (Althouse) and drove away with the car to a friend, Herman Sherman. On discovering that the car belonged to a federal agent, both Smith and Clemons fled town. Clemons and Smith were arrested in Cleveland and Birmingham respectively days after allegedly committing the crime. Both were found guilty for the murder of Althouse. Clemons and Smith appealed the case.
Issues Presented
Clemons raised three issues during the appeal: that the evidence to prove that Althouse was a federal agent and was on the course of duty was insufficient; that the court misused its discretion by accepting the evidence taken from events prior the murder; and that court misused its discretion by accepting Clemons' waiver and confession as evidence. Clemons argued that 18 U.S.C. does not give a definition of ‘performance of official duties' (U.S. v. Clemons, 1994)
Smith stated that the court made a mistake by accepting Clemons' confession that implicated him. He also states that the court made an error by allowing Clemons to cross-examine him on irrelevant issu...