: the US v. Clemons - Case Study Example

Case Study: US v. ClemonsFacts of the Case:The case involves George Douglas Althouse, who was a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the U.S. assigned to Birmingham, the Alabama office. Althouse and Hobbs worked on an investigation together and planned a meeting to discuss some search warrants that were executed the following day. Naylor Braswell who was the deputy sheriff of Jefferson County accompanied Althouse for the meeting in the undercover automobile, black model Camaro he owned.

On their way, they stopped at a certain Chevron service station where Braswell left to get a telephone number of some pizza delivery source with Althouse remaining in the car. During that short period, it appeared that Althouse had made a phone call to the girlfriend from the cellular phone in the car. Consequently, Braswell saw an individual sitting at the driver's seat of the car pointing a gun to the head of Althouse and later shots were heard as Althouse exited the car. Although, Althouse tried to fire shots at the car, he died shortly from the gunshot wounds.

Testimony offered during the trial revealed that before the murder, Derick Smith had told several individuals that he wanted the engine for his Camaro car. On the evening when the murder occurred, Clemons, Smith, and another third person, Kenny Reed, drove to a nearby shopping center to look for an appropriate car for Smith. When they failed to find one, they went to the highway where Clemons saw Camaro car parked at the Chevron service station. Reed and Smith drove to a parking to wait for Clemons when they heard gun shots and saw Clemons leave with the car at a high speed.

Clemons took the car to a friend's place, Herman and realized it was a police car. Both Smith and Clemons left town and were later arrested and convicted for murder. Prior Proceedings: Smith and Eugene were convicted by the District Judge of murdering the federal agent engaged in performance of official duty. Further, Clemons was convicted for carrying and consequently using the firearm to commit a crime. Issue Presented or Questions of Law: The issues presented include; first, whether Althouse was on official duty; secondly, whether prior uncharged misconduct could have been included during the trial and thirdly, whether Clemons could have interrogated Smith's drug use.

Arguments of the Parties: The argument by Clemons is whether the evidence that was presented at the trial was enough to prove that Althouse was indeed engaged in carrying out of his official duty when the alleged crime occurred. Further, Clemons argues that the district court improperly included the prior uncharged misconduct in its ruling. Smith on the other hand, challenged the two evidentiary rulings. Smith also argued that the court made an error in allowing Clemons interrogate his drug use, ownership of a pistol as well as assault of a police officer.

Holding Rule of Law: In upholding the ruling made by the District Judge, the court said that the evidence that was provided proved that the special DEA agent was performing his official duty when the murder took place while sitting in a car. It was while going for a meeting concerning an investigation being conducted by the local police department and DEA. Further, the court upheld that the district never abused its discretion in the termination made that the prior three carjackings that that had been committed previously while similar in style and nature to warrant admission.

Finally, it upheld that allowing the defendant to go ahead with cross-examination of the co-defendant regarding drug use was not an error and did not affect the rights of the co-defendant. Saint Leo Core Values Displayed: There was no violation of the Saint Leo Core Values by any of the parties involved. Rationale for the Judgment: The Appellate court used the previous case of United States v, Miller, Supra where the court made a comparison of the drug transaction where a defendant was charged with a transaction that had taken place months later.

In this case, the court upheld that the prior evidence that was given were admissible. Conclusion: Supreme Court upheld the judgment made by the District Court that enough evidence was available for convicting Clemons with murder.