United States v. Mayfield
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
771 F.3d 417 (2014)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Leslie Mayfield (defendant) for conspiracy and firearm offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846, 922(g)(1), and 924(c)(1)(A). The federal district court trial evidence established that Mayfield's criminal record included convictions for robbing illegal-drug stash-houses. Witness Jeffrey Potts testified that, acting undercover for the government, he offered Mayfield a chance to help him and his co-conspirator rob another stash-house. According to Potts, Mayfield agreed, helped plan and prepare for the robbery, and assembled the conspirators' arsenal. Mayfield proffered testimony that despite his criminal record, he had since gone straight, spurned Potts' persistent invitations to join the conspiracy, and agreed to do so only after Potts implicitly threatened Mayfield if he did not. According to Mayfield, Potts coached him on what to say at the planning meetings and gave Mayfield the weapons for his arsenal. The judge granted the government's motion in limine to exclude Mayfield's proffered evidence. The jury found Mayfield guilty, and he appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. By a split vote, a panel of judges upheld the conviction. The full court granted Mayfield's motion for rehearing en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sykes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.