Case Analysis Paper on United States of America, Plaintiff

Case analysis

United States of America, Plaintiff


Eugene Milton Clemons, II, a/k/a “Gene”, a/k/a “Dean”, Dedrick Germond Smith, a/k/a Derrick, Defendants–Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 93–6328. Sept. 22, 1994.


Eugene Milton Clemons and Dedrick Germond Smith (defendants) v. United States of America (Plaintiff).


The defendants, Eugene Milton Clemons and Dedrick Germond Smith are accused of murdering a federal agent who still in active duty. This accusation is in violation of the 18 U.S.C 1111 and 1114 codes that a law official assaulted while in active duty results in a conviction of the accused for a term not exceeding 20 years. Clemons was also accused and convicted of carrying a firearm while performing a crime, which is in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) code. All convictions and accusations leveled against the defendants were held by the court of appeals.

Issues and Arguments Presented

There were three major issues or questions of law that were presented. First, the defendants sought the clarification for the clarification and understanding of when an officer is performing his/her official duties. They argued that since the ‘performance of duties’ is not well defined, and then it could be possible that the victim was off duty. Second, there was an issue regarding the admissibility into evidence of prior offences of carjacking that had similar modus operandi and execution style. The argument was that prior similar carjacking should not be falsely admitted into evidence as having been committed by the defendants since their convictions had not been substantiated. Third, the submission of evidence of a redacted statement from a confession of a crime when the defendant was a minor should not be admitted as evidence in the hearing since they were performed in confidence and Clemons was still a minor at that time.

Rationale and Ruling

The court ruled that all the issues presented were null and did not merit removal as evidence to the case since they were used a pattern of misconduct by the defendants