VERMILLION, S.D. – A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will listen to oral arguments from three high-profile cases in the University of South Dakota School of Law Courtroom on Oct. 25. A full schedule and breakdown of each case is below.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit employs security methods to ensure the well-being of all who attend its proceedings. All people attending the arguments will need to enter through the southeast door of the Law School. Book bags, backpacks and other packages are subject to search and may not come into the courtroom during arguments. Anyone who brings a phone will be asked to ensure that it has been turned off. Attendees are encouraged to bring a minimal amount of outside items to keep the entrance process smooth and without delays.
Thursday, October 25 – 9-10:30 a.m. – USD Law School Courtroom
United States v. Jon Bryant, Sr. - Jon Henri Bryant, Sr., was charged with Kidnapping, Carjacking, and Interstate Domestic Violence. He plead guilty to Kidnapping and was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. He is appealing his sentence, claiming (1) that the district court procedurally erred in calculating his Guidelines range, and (2) that the district court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable.
United States v. Keith Hagen - A jury convicted Keith Hagen of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and four counts of mail fraud. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $236,000, and a $100 special assessment on each count. On appeal, Hagen claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he acted with intent to defraud.
United States v. Calmer Cottier - Calmer Cottier was convicted of Second-Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and he is appealing his jury conviction. On appeal, he claims (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury, (3) the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of witnesses, (4) testimony about an unrelated sexual act was incorrectly admitted, and (5) the district court procedurally erred in calculating his Guidelines range.