Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm. The court held that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companion were the assailants described in a 911 call so as to have justification to stop them in the first place. In this case, defendant and his companion were two men, they matched the generic description of the assailants, they were in close temporal and geographical proximity to the crime, their clothing partly matched the assailants' clothing, and they were walking away from the crime scene. Having concluded that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop, the court had no trouble concluding further that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the frisk. View "United States v. Slater" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for five controlled substance offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute crack and heroin and distribution of heroin; defendant's Batson challenge failed because the government offered race-neutral reasons for its peremptory strike and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant failed to establish that the government's combination of reasons was pretextual; and there was no error in answering the jury's question for clarification of the term "on or about" and there was no abuse of the district court's substantial discretion in formulating jury instructions. View "United States v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress where police entry into the residence in response to the call for medical aid for a shooting victim was not constitutionally objectionable.In this case, given the fact of a shooting and the other information known to officers at the time, exigent circumstances made it permissible to look into other rooms to ensure the absence of a shooter or additional victims. Furthermore, the officers almost immediately saw ammunition and suspected narcotics in plain view; officers were permitted to secure the exterior of the residence for the same reasons; and, to the extent defendant takes issue with the officers looking on the adjacent property, any objects found there were abandoned. The court concluded that defendant's arguments do not merit relief where the officers were not "lingering" or "frolicking" in a manner inconsistent with a security sweep. Moreover, no information gleaned through lingering in the home, or re-entering after the ambulance departed, aided in securing the search warrant. Finally, the court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant possessed the firearms in connection with another felony under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(b). View "United States v. Crutchfield" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an enhanced offense level pursuant to USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) based on prior state convictions for a crime of violence and a controlled substance offense. In this case, defendant's prior conviction for threatening to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, in violation of California Penal Code 422(a), qualified as a crime of violence because the statute's elements necessarily include a threatened use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person. The court rejected defendant's contention that his prior California conviction for possession of marijuana for sale does not qualify as a controlled substance offense due to California's reclassification of his conviction. The court has repeatedly rejected similar arguments to the federal effects of state classification. View "United States v. Doran" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for extortion, attempted extortion, and receipt of a firearm with intent to commit a felony. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the use of his official position on the Tri-County Drug Task Force to obtain an ATV and firearms from confidential informants. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charges.The court also held that the district court did exactly what it should have done after receiving unsolicited, case-related messages from a family member, and thus the district court did not err, plain or otherwise, by failing to sua sponte recuse the judge at sentencing. In this case, while the court did not know why the district judge's brother was interested in the case (nor did the district court), nothing in the text messages disclosed by the district judge revealed any favoritism or antagonism by the judge. Furthermore, none of the parties observed any potential issues or objected. View "United States v. Chastain" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's 2005 conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon where the conviction was sufficiently similar and not too remote in time, it went to the issue of proving knowledge and intent, and it did not unfairly prejudice defendant.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's objections to the prosecution's closing arguments. In this case, the prosecutor's remarks were invited by defense counsel at closing and, even assuming the remarks were improper, defendant failed to show prejudice. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three counts of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce based on a series of tweets he directed at United States Senator Joni Ernst. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction where defendant's admission, the threatening content of his tweets, and the warning from the police officer were enough to allow a reasonable jury to find that he intended his tweets as threats or knew they would be viewed that way.The court also held that the district court should have required both a subjective finding of knowledge or intent and also an objective finding that the communication was threatening. Nevertheless, defendant's tweets were objectively threatening and it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found defendants guilty absent that error. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by permitting testimony from an officer about the meaning of the internet slang used in the tweets, and in refusing to admit an exculpatory tweet where it was not contemporaneous enough with his charged tweets. View "United States v. Dierks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was convicted for two counts of first degree murder among other things and was sentenced to death. Petitioner claims that counsel at his third penalty-phase trial was ineffective for failing to argue that the passage of time had undermined his mitigation case.The court held that petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not "substantial enough" to excuse his procedural default. The court explained that when postconviction counsel filed petitioner's petition in 2010, the law was far from settled that a 10-year delay between conviction and sentencing would give rise to a constitutional claim, much less that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the argument two years earlier. The court stated that failing to make an argument that would require the resolution of unsettled legal questions is generally not outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. In this case, postconviction counsel's performance was reasonable and the Martinez exception—the only conceivable basis for excusing petitioner's procedural default—is unavailable to him. Finally, the court held that petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "Deck v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Woods and Shelton's convictions for crimes involving bribes and kickbacks using public funds. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to dismiss based on an FBI agent's misconduct in destroying evidence. In this case, there is simply nothing to connect the dots between the agent's destruction of his computer data and the underlying cases against defendants and others as proven largely through records held by third-party custodians unrelated to and unaffected by the agent. Furthermore, in granting the government's motion to exclude evidence of the agent's bad acts, there was no error in the district court's assessment of potential prejudice, confusion of issues, wasting of time, or in the balancing of these issues.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying a motion for a continuance. To the extent Woods and Shelton argue Instruction 7 as originally given, or as amended, misstated the law, the court rejected their argument; to the extent Woods and Shelton argue the district court violated their Sixth Amendment rights by engaging in ex parte communication with the jury, the court rejected their argument due to a lack of prejudice; and the court rejected the remaining challenges to the jury instructions. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for six counts of interference with commerce by robbery. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress cell site location information (CSLI) obtained under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). In this case, when the officers obtained the information, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), which held that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. Therefore, the evidence was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officers acted with reasonable reliance on section 2703(d) and were not on notice that the statute was unconstitutional.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged robberies as intrinsic evidence and in admitting evidence regarding a Mississippi robbery to show defendant's identity. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice where defendant perjured himself at trial and attempted to coach a witness' testimony. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law