United States of America v. Thomas David Carruth

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2126
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Thomas David Carruth
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: January 16, 2026
Filed: February 24, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Thomas David Carruth was an Arkansas state district court judge. Courtney
Mason recorded him asking her to have sex with him, and then she gave the
recording to law enforcement. The FBI then scheduled an interview with Carruth to
investigate whether he had solicited sex from Mason in exchange for expediting
Mason’s boyfriend’s criminal case. During the interview, Carruth told the FBI

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
agents that he had neither requested sex from Mason nor insinuated such a request.
He was thereafter charged with several crimes, including making materially false
statements to federal officers. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
At trial, the Government introduced Mason’s recording of her meeting with
Carruth and excerpts from Carruth’s interview with the FBI. The Government also
presented testimony from Mason and the agents who had interviewed Carruth. After
the conclusion of Government’s case-in-chief, Carruth moved for judgment of
acquittal on the ground that the Government had not presented sufficient evidence
to show that he had made materially false statements during his interview with the
FBI agents. The district court1 denied that motion. Ultimately, the jury convicted
Carruth of lying to federal officers but acquitted him on all other charges. After the
jury’s verdict, Carruth again moved for judgment of acquittal, this time arguing that
the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts. The district court denied the motion and
sentenced Carruth to 24 months’ imprisonment. Carruth appeals the denial of his
motions for judgment of acquittal based on (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2)
alleged inconsistency of the jury verdicts. Both challenges fail.
We review Carruth’s challenge to the sufficiency of the Government’s
evidence de novo. See United States v. Johnson, 745 F.3d 866, 868-69 (8th Cir.
2014). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict,
granting all reasonable inferences that are supported by that evidence. We will
reverse a conviction only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation modified). Thus, if the Government
presented sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could have found that
Carruth made materially false statements to the FBI agents, we should affirm.
Here, the Government presented sufficient evidence to the jury showing that
Carruth made materially false statements to the FBI agents. At trial, the Government
1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
played for the jury the entirety of Mason’s recording. We have reviewed the
transcript of that recording, and it shows that Carruth made and insinuated requests
for sex. We will spare Carruth the indignity of analyzing the transcript in further
detail here. Suffice to say, the Government’s evidence was sufficient to show that
Carruth made materially false statements to the FBI agents when he denied making
or insinuating any requests to Mason for sex.
“[W]hen considering what are characterized as inconsistent verdicts, . . . we
only ask whether the government presented sufficient evidence to support the
conviction.” United States v. Opare-Addo, 486 F.3d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 2007).
Because the Government presented sufficient evidence to support Carruth’s
conviction, Carruth’s claim based on the alleged inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts
fails.
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --