CA1: just a usual gun-possession and robbery case

US v. O'Shea, No. 04-1179, is a gun charge that involves a robbery where the robber drove an SUV – the car of choice of many lawyers that call themselves “law abiding” and/or “god-fearing” but don’t make enough money for a really fancy car.  Most of the points are rather fact-based and relate to sufficiency of the evidence, and are boring and rejected.  The defendant takes issue with the “reasonable doubt” portions of the jury instructions used, but they don’t go anywhere.  The court rejects the argue that the evidence of the robbery should have been suppressed, but the court finds that it wasn’t overly prejudicial.  Finally, the court concludes that the judge didn’t need to, on his on motion, do anything about the prosecutors repeated attempts, during closing argument, to have the jury draw inferences from the evidence of the robbery, even though there was no direct evidence.