## Facts

- Elain “Kay” Young’s husband, Melvin Griesbauer, was shot and killed in a barn on the couple’s Missouri property.
- Young had obtained multiple life-insurance policies on Griesbauer and faced financial difficulties.
- The government’s theory was that Young solicited her friend, Katherine Mock, to kill Griesbauer in exchange for financial benefit connected to anticipated insurance proceeds.
- Evidence included testimony that Mock sought a person to commit the killing and that payment was discussed in terms of insurance money.
- Mock bought items such as a ski mask and gloves; forensic evidence linked her to those items recovered at or near the scene.
- After the shooting, Young and Mock separately gave a consistent account to a deputy that Mock had been asleep and that they went together to the barn after hearing a gunshot.
- The next day, Young gave police a different account regarding Mock’s whereabouts immediately after the gunshot.
- Young and Mock were tried together and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire resulting in death and murder-for-hire resulting in death.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Young’s prior acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether the district court improperly admitted alleged coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) absent sufficient proof of a conspiracy.
3. Whether admitting a deputy’s testimony about Mock’s out-of-court statements violated Young’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights when Mock did not testify.
4. Whether a note associated with Young was improperly admitted due to inadequate authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
5. Whether excluding evidence of Young’s later inconsistent statement was reversible error as to Mock.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying severance of the joint trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.
7. Whether the district court erred in rejecting the defendants’ Batson challenges to the government’s peremptory strikes.
8. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the “for-hire” element of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a bargained-for exchange or promise of payment).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed both defendants’ convictions on all counts.
- The court held the Rule 404(b) evidence was admitted for permissible purposes (including motive and intent) and limiting instructions reduced unfair prejudice.
- The court held coconspirator statements were properly admitted because the government showed by a preponderance that a conspiracy existed and the statements furthered it.
- The court held Mock’s statements recounted by the deputy were used to show a coordinated alibi rather than for their truth, so there was no Confrontation Clause violation.
- The court held the note was sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial evidence; any error was harmless given the other evidence.
- The court held exclusion of Young’s later inconsistent statement did not warrant reversal as to Mock because it was cumulative and not outcome-determinative.
- The court held denial of severance was within the district court’s discretion because defenses were not irreconcilable and limiting instructions mitigated spillover risk.
- The court held the Batson rulings were not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find the required bargained-for exchange beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits other-acts evidence for non-propensity purposes such as motive, intent, plan, or relationship, subject to Rule 403 balancing and limiting instructions.
- Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is admissible as a coconspirator statement if the government proves by a preponderance that a conspiracy existed, the declarant and defendant participated, and the statement furthered the conspiracy.
- The Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay offered for its truth; it is not violated when an out-of-court statement is admitted for a non-truth purpose (such as showing a coordinated account).
- Rule 901 authentication may be established through circumstantial evidence connecting a document to a party; erroneous admission may be harmless if it did not substantially affect the verdict.
- Joint trials are favored for jointly indicted defendants, particularly in conspiracy prosecutions; severance requires a showing of actual prejudice that limiting instructions cannot cure.
- Batson challenges are assessed under a three-step framework; appellate review gives substantial deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.
- To prove murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958, the government must show a bargained-for exchange, which may be established by circumstantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the murder-for-hire and conspiracy convictions, holding that the challenged evidentiary rulings, denial of severance, and Batson determinations were within the trial court’s discretion (or harmless), and that circumstantial evidence supported the required bargained-for exchange under 18 U.S.C. § 1958.


United States v. Young, 753 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014)