United States v. Philip N. Antico

Summary

**United States v. Antico, 934 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2019)** – The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of a police officer for deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242) and a supervisor for obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3)), holding that sufficient evidence supported findings that the officer used objectively unreasonable force against a passively resisting passenger and that the supervisor knowingly made misleading statements to federal investigators about altered police reports. The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, finding that the district court's determination that the officer lacked the intent to cause bodily injury when using a Taser—rejecting the aggravated assault guideline (U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2)—may have been infected by legal error. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and that Antico invited any error in the Allen charge by requesting it.

Holdings

1. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Brown used excessive force against J.B. and that he acted willfully. The evidence showed that Brown used punches, kicks, and a Taser against a passively resisting passenger, and that he omitted the use of force from his initial reports, indicating consciousness of guilt.
2. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Antico knowingly made misleading statements and omissions to FBI agents with intent to hinder the investigation. The stark contrast between his detailed memory of the incident and his claimed inability to recall the changes to the reports supports an inference of intent.
3. Antico invited any error by requesting the charge, and alternatively, the charge from the pattern jury instructions is not inherently coercive.
4. The district court's factual finding that Brown lacked the intent to cause bodily injury may have been infected by legal error because it applied a single-intent standard, not recognizing that a defendant can have dual intent. Therefore, the sentences are vacated and remanded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supports Brown's conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supports Antico's conviction for obstruction of justice.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Brown's motion for a new trial.
4. Whether the district court erred in giving the Allen charge.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Antico's motions regarding juror misconduct.
6. Whether the district court erred in its calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range for Brown and Antico by not using aggravated assault as the underlying offense.

Disposition

affirmed, vacated, and remanded