Limiting Redundant Robbery Predicates in Felony Murder: United States v. Jackson

Introduction

United States v. Jackson (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025) addresses whether a defendant can be punished simultaneously for felony murder based on robbery and multiple underlying robbery counts, and examines challenges to jury instructions and the classification of predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Kevin Marvell Jackson was convicted in federal district court of:

Count One: Felony murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111(a)) for the death of Bradley Dillon during a robbery in Indian country;
Count Two: Robbery of Dillon in Indian country (18 U.S.C. § 2111);
Count Three: Robbery of Dakota Berryhill in Indian country (18 U.S.C. § 2111);
Count Four: Using a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death (18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), (j)).

He received concurrent life sentences on Counts One and Four and 15-year terms on Counts Two and Three. On appeal, Jackson raised three main issues:

Whether the district court’s jury instructions and its answer to a jury note coerced unanimity and curtailed deliberations;
Whether punishing him for felony murder and two robbery convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause;
Whether felony murder or robbery in Indian country qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed two of Jackson’s challenges and granted relief on the double jeopardy claim. Key holdings:

Jury Instructions & Note Response: No plain error. The court’s unanimity instruction and its response that jurors “have all of the evidence necessary” did not mislead or coerce a guilty verdict.
Double Jeopardy: Plain error meriting vacatur of one — but only one — of Counts One, Two, or Three. Under Blockburger, felony murder in perpetration of robbery and robbery are the “same offense” as to any one robbery. Because Jackson was convicted of two separate robberies, only one robbery count can be vacated to cure the double jeopardy defect.
Crime of Violence (Count Four): No plain error. Robbery in Indian country categorically requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force under § 924(c)(3)(A), and any instructional misstep regarding felony murder as a predicate was harmless given the valid robbery predicate.

The court remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate one of those three overlapping convictions and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) – the “same-elements” test for cumulative punishments under the Double Jeopardy Clause: each statutory offense must require proof of an element the other does not.
United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302 (10th Cir. 1987) – robbery in Indian country is a lesser-included offense of felony murder in perpetration of robbery.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) and Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021) – framework for plain-error review in criminal cases.
United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) – attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) because it does not necessarily require threatened force.
Unpublished Tenth Circuit decisions (United States v. Shirley, 808 F. App’x 672; United States v. Clark, 815 F. App’x 302) – robbery in Indian country is a § 924(c) crime of violence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Jury Instructions & Plain Error Review
The court examined the instructions as a whole (including admonitions against surrendering honest beliefs) and found no “clear or obvious” error that coerced a verdict or implied guilt. Its standard “stock” answer to a juror note—“You have all of the evidence necessary for you to reach a verdict”—was preceded by an identical explanation, preventing any inference of bias.

2. Double Jeopardy and Blockburger
Under the Blockburger test, felony murder (which incorporates an underlying robbery) and robbery share identical elements as to any one predicate robbery. Jackson’s conviction on felony murder plus two robbery counts thus imposed multiple punishments for what could be the same offense. Because two distinct robberies (Dillon and Berryhill) were charged, only one of those robberies “merged” into the felony murder. Vacatur of one overlapping count cures the violation while preserving valid convictions for an independent robbery and felony murder.

3. “Crime of Violence” Predicate
Section 924(c)(3)(A) requires that the predicate offense “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” Robbery in Indian country (§ 2111) explicitly requires that a taking be “by force and violence, or by intimidation,” satisfying the categorical approach. The court declined to extend Taylor to § 2111’s separate “takes or attempts to take” phrasing, noting a circuit split on similar language in the bank robbery statute and the absence of controlling Tenth Circuit precedent.

Impact

Clarifies that when felony murder rests on robbery, only one robbery predicate may merge, not all charged robberies.
Reaffirms the Tenth Circuit’s consistency in applying the Blockburger “same-elements” test to layered federal offenses.
Resolves uncertainty over jury “stock answers” by emphasizing the importance of advance disclosure and context.
Signals deference to circuit splits where no controlling precedent exists, particularly on the interpretation of disjunctive statutory language in predicate-offense provisions.
Guides sentencing courts on proper vacatur remedies when multiple predicate counts overlap under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Blockburger Test: A tool to decide if two crimes are “the same offense” for double jeopardy. If each crime requires proof of a fact the other does not, they are distinct; if not, they merge.
Plain Error Review: A four-step analysis for unpreserved errors: (1) a clear or obvious mistake; (2) affects substantial rights; (3) a reasonable probability of a different outcome; (4) undermines the fairness or integrity of proceedings.
Lesser-Included Offense: An offense whose elements are entirely subsumed by a greater crime. Conviction of the greater crime bars separate punishment for the lesser.
Categorical Approach (924(c)): Matches the statutory elements of a predicate offense against the definition of “crime of violence” without examining the defendant’s actual conduct.

Conclusion

United States v. Jackson reinforces foundational principles in double jeopardy jurisprudence by requiring the vacatur of only one redundant robbery conviction when felony murder relies on robbery as an element. The decision also upholds rigorous standards for jury instruction review and affirms robbery in Indian country as a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c). Trial and sentencing courts should apply these clarifications to avoid duplicative punishments and preserve the integrity of jury deliberations.