Buck Leon Hammers v. United States

Mr. Hammers was the Superintendent of a school district in rural Oklahoma. A school employee, Pam Keeling, engaged in fraudulent invoicing, ordering, and check writing over several years. The Government’s theory was that Mr. Hammers, by virtue of his position, should have been involved in all these activities, and, therefore, he inferentially must have been. Without actual evidence of wrongdoing, the Government obtained convictions only on the conspiracy counts (Mr. Hammers was acquitted of all seven (7) substantive counts). The first question presented is: Whether the Tenth Circuit improperly found, failing to apply this Court’s authority and contrary to other courts of appeals and other of its own prior decisions, sufficient evidence for Mr. Hammers to be convicted of conspiracy based solely upon inferences the jury could have drawn from his executive position at the school and his association with Keeling.

Days after the FBI executed a search warrant at the school, Keeling committed suicide. Before doing so, she left a note in which she stated: “I Pam Keeling take full responsibility for everything at Grant School. No vendor nor Mr. Hammers had anything to do with what happened. I am truly sorry and pray for forgiveness.” (hereafter, the “Note”). The Note was excluded from evidence at trial as hearsay. The second question presented is: Whether the Tenth Circuit’s decision to exclude the Note was contrary to Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973) and its progeny in that it never gave any consideration to the exculpatory nature of the Note in its evidentiary analysis. (i)