United States v. Parks

No. 24-28 (2d Cir. June 22, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 22, 2026 · No. No. 24-28

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Edward Michael Parks’s convictions for two counts of kidnapping resulting in death and one count of witness tampering by killing. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) requires proof of but-for causation, not a separate proximate-cause or foreseeability finding, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court also rejected Parks’s challenges to the supplemental jury instructions and found no reversible error.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Dennis Jacobs; Peter W. Wesley; Gary R. Park
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
June 22, 2026
Docket number
No. 24-28
Procedural posture
Parks appealed from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. He challenged the jury instructions concerning causation for kidnapping resulting in death and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting all three convictions.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the preserved challenge to the causation instruction de novo, the unpreserved challenge to the supplemental instruction for plain error, and the sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges de novo. Rule 29 sufficiency claims require affirmance if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Rule 33 relief is reviewed under a more discretionary standard and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances or manifest injustice.
Precedential value
Published Second Circuit opinion; precedential
Parties
Edward Michael Parks, aka Lee, aka Trouble v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedureharmless error

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedurefederal appellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)'s requirement that death result from kidnapping requires proof that the kidnapping was the proximate or reasonably foreseeable cause of death in addition to but-for causation.
  2. Whether the supplemental jury instruction improperly permitted conviction for kidnapping resulting in death based on the defendant's acts generally rather than acts constituting the kidnapping.
  3. Whether the supplemental instruction and the government's argument that Parks need not have been the shooter violated due process by changing the theory of the case.
  4. Whether sufficient evidence supported the convictions for kidnapping resulting in death.
  5. Whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction for witness tampering by killing under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C).

Holdings

  1. Section 1201(a)(1) requires proof that the kidnapping was the but-for cause of the victim's death, but does not additionally require proof that death was a reasonably foreseeable or proximate result of the kidnapping.
  2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Parks's kidnapping of Connor and Lawrence was the but-for cause of their deaths.
  3. The supplemental instruction referring to the defendant's 'actions' did not constitute reversible error because, considered in the context of the charge as a whole, the instructions focused on the kidnapping and required the jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
  4. The district court did not violate Parks's due process rights by instructing that the government did not have to prove Parks was the shooter.
  5. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Parks killed Williams with the intent to prevent communication with a federal law-enforcement officer.

Key quotations

The district court properly instructed the jury that, pursuant to Section 1201(a)(1), the kidnapping needed only be the “but-for” cause of the victims’ deaths, not necessarily the proximate cause. (at 2)
Any error here would nevertheless be harmless because the trial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Parks’ kidnapping of Connor and Lawrence was the proximate cause of their deaths. (at 23)
The likelihood of communication with a federal officer must be “more than remote, outlandish, or simply hypothetical” but need not be shown to be “beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even that it is more likely than not.” (at 29)

Factual background

Parks held Damian Connor and Tamar Lawrence at gunpoint as collateral after Eric Gomez took firearms from Parks without paying, telling Gomez that the victims would be harmed if the guns or money were not returned. Parks directed the victims and others to travel to different locations, and evidence showed that Parks shot Connor and Lawrence in a parking lot after Connor surrendered money; ballistics and DNA evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. Later that day, Parks killed eyewitness Devante Williams, telling Jose Covington that he had to get rid of Williams because Williams talked too much. The government presented evidence that federal agents had been investigating the murders and would likely have sought to interview Williams.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Parks in 2023 of two counts of kidnapping resulting in death and one count of witness tampering by killing. The district court imposed three consecutive life sentences and denied Parks's post-verdict motion for acquittal or a new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33. The Second Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…