00-3532 U.S. v. Scott

Listen to this article

“[W]hat we have is a battle of inferences and, although it is close, we do not believe that the district judge erred by inferring that Scott coerced Jones. First, Scott told Chance what he intended to do in the library; he wanted to ‘make sure [Jones] was not going to testify again’ – this after threatening that Jones should ‘keep his mouth shut’ and ‘better not testify if he knew what was good for him.’ The district judge could reasonably infer that Scott did exactly what he told Chance he would do. Second, there is no dispute that Scott had a golden opportunity to coerce Jones. He had a 20-minute conversation with Jones in Sangamon’s law library where, likely not out of respect for library policy, they spoke in ‘low’ tones. Third, Scott’s reaction to the meeting was positive. He seemed ‘happy’ and ‘relieved’ that Jones would not testify, after previously worrying about it. All of this took place against a backdrop in which Jones was ‘frightened’ by Scott’s presence and feared that he had ‘to protect himself.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Mills, J., Evans, J.