SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(US)(ca6) 267

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
United States – Appellant
Versus
Sterling Roberts – Respondent



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 22-3587 │ v. │ │ STERLING H. ROBERTS, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. No. 3:18-cr-00032-1—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.

Argued: July 25, 2023

Decided and Filed: October 17, 2023

Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Kevin M. Schad, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Kevin Koller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kevin M. Schad, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Kevin Koller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Sterling Roberts appeals his conviction for federal crimes relating to the death of Robert “Bob” Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell was in a child-custody dispute with his ex-wife, Tawnney Caldwell, who was Roberts’ girlfriend. Roberts tried to kill, or at least seriously harm, Mr. Caldwell by luring him through false guise to a remote location. No. 22-3587 United States v. Roberts Page 2

Mr. Caldwell managed to escape. Later, he wasn’t so fortunate. Mr. Caldwell was murdered after a family-counseling session.

Roberts argues, based on the Confrontation Clause, federal evidentiary rules, and the attorney-client privilege, that the district court improperly admitted evidence related to the earlier attack and other incriminating proof. He also raises two constitutional challenges to the interstate stalking statute under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, claiming that it exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and that the counts of his conviction are multiplicitous. Because none of Roberts’ arguments have merit, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of conviction.

I.

Because of the numerous relevant persons in this opinion that have the same last name and the various relationships between those persons, we begin with this table listing their names, how they are referenced herein, and their relationship to the victim:

Name Referenced Name & Relationship to the Victim

Roberts Sterling Roberts (Alleged Perpetrator) Mr. Caldwell Robert Caldwell (Victim/Decedent) Ms. Caldwell Tawnney Caldwell (Roberts’ girlfriend & Mr. Caldwell’s ex-wife) Candice Caldwell Candice Caldwell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top