## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Noah Beverly, Johnny P. Crockett, and Douglas A. Turns with conspiring to commit, and committing, multiple armed bank robberies in Ohio (1994–1995), and with related firearm offenses.
- The government relied heavily on testimony from cooperating participants describing planning and execution of the robberies and each defendant’s role.
- In one robbery, a hat recovered from an abandoned getaway vehicle contained a single hair; the government introduced mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing to associate the hair with Beverly’s mtDNA profile.
- The defense challenged mtDNA evidence as unreliable and potentially misleading, emphasizing mtDNA’s inability to uniquely identify an individual, the shared maternal-line nature of mtDNA, and concerns about the testing laboratory’s lack of accreditation at the time of testing.
- During jury selection, the government used a peremptory strike against an African-American venire member, prompting a Batson objection.
- Turns sought severance from his co-defendants, challenged limits on cross-examination of a government witness, contested the sufficiency of the evidence, and argued his lengthy consecutive firearm sentence was unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting mtDNA hair evidence under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rule 403.
2. Whether the government’s peremptory strike of an African-American prospective juror violated Batson.
3. Whether denial of Turns’s Rule 14 severance motion was an abuse of discretion causing compelling prejudice.
4. Whether limitations on Turns’s cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause or otherwise required reversal.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Crockett’s and Turns’s convictions under the Rule 29 standard.
6. Whether Turns’s lengthy consecutive sentence (driven by multiple § 924(c) counts) was grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment.
7. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument deprived defendants of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions of Beverly, Crockett, and Turns and affirmed Turns’s sentence.
- The court held the mtDNA evidence was properly admitted; the methodology satisfied Daubert reliability, and Rule 403 did not require exclusion.
- The court rejected the Batson challenge, concluding the prosecutor gave race-neutral reasons and the district court did not clearly err in finding no purposeful discrimination.
- The court held denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion; joint trial prejudice was not compelling, and the jury’s differentiated verdicts supported its ability to compartmentalize evidence.
- The court found no reversible error in the cross-examination limits.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the challenged convictions when viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
- The court held Turns’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and that any improper prosecutorial remarks did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Expert forensic evidence is admissible under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when the methodology is sufficiently reliable; unresolved concerns about contamination, error, or laboratory practice typically go to weight, not admissibility.
- mtDNA evidence may be admitted even though it cannot uniquely identify an individual; its probative value may be significant when properly explained and tested through cross-examination.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits exclusion only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; risk of overstatement can be addressed through adversarial testing and judicial supervision.
- Batson review follows a three-step framework; appellate courts defer to the trial court’s credibility findings and review for clear error.
- Joint trials of alleged co-conspirators are favored; Rule 14 severance requires a showing of specific, compelling prejudice that limiting instructions and trial structure cannot cure.
- Confrontation Clause claims based on curtailed cross-examination require a showing that the defendant was meaningfully prevented from exposing bias or unreliability to the jury.
- Sufficiency challenges are assessed by whether any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when evidence is viewed in the government’s favor; cooperating-witness testimony is for the jury to weigh unless incredible as a matter of law.
- Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges to non-capital sentences succeed only in the rare case of gross disproportionality; substantial deference is given to legislatively mandated penalties, including consecutive § 924(c) terms.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld the defendants’ multi-robbery convictions and Turns’s lengthy firearm-driven sentence, holding that mtDNA hair evidence satisfied Daubert and was not unfairly prejudicial, the government’s peremptory strike survived Batson review, and the trial court’s severance, cross-examination, and trial-management rulings did not require reversal.


United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2004)