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

In January 2019, Robert Wolter robbed a bank in Bismarck, North Dakota, taking approximately $6,800. He was later arrested in February 2019 for smuggling bulk cash while attempting to fly to Ghana. Those charges were dismissed in February 2020, and he was subsequently arrested for bank robbery. Wolter was arraigned in July 2020. He filed multiple motions to continue the trial, delaying it significantly. He also requested a psychological evaluation, which further delayed proceedings. Wolter eventually moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming his right to a speedy trial was violated under the Speedy Trial Act (STA) and the Sixth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Wolter's motion to dismiss. The court found that most delays were excludable under the STA and that the government did not negligently or intentionally cause delays. The court calculated that only 31 days of non-excludable time counted toward the STA. Regarding the Sixth Amendment claim, the court found no evidence of government misconduct and attributed most delays to Wolter. The court also found no demonstrable prejudice to Wolter due to the delays. Wolter was convicted of bank robbery by a jury in January 2023 and sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the delays were either excludable under the STA or attributable to Wolter. The court concluded that only 46 days of non-excludable time counted toward the STA, well below the 70-day limit. Additionally, the court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and determined that Wolter's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were largely due to his own actions and did not result in demonstrable prejudice. View "United States v. Wolter" on Justia Law

James Hanapel was convicted by a jury of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The case stemmed from an undercover operation during the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota, where a Department of Homeland Security agent posed as a fourteen-year-old girl named "Journey" on a dating app. Hanapel initiated contact with Journey, and after learning her age, he continued to communicate with her, suggesting they meet and engage in sexual activities. Hanapel was arrested when he arrived at the agreed-upon location with condoms.In the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Hanapel raised an entrapment defense, arguing that he was induced by law enforcement to commit the crime. The district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty. Hanapel was sentenced to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum. He appealed the conviction, contending that he was entrapped as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether Hanapel was induced by the government and whether he was predisposed to commit the crime. The court found that Hanapel initiated contact and was the first to suggest sexual activity. The court also determined that the photo sent by the undercover agent was not overly suggestive and did not constitute inducement. Additionally, the court noted that Hanapel's quick agreement to meet and his possession of condoms indicated predisposition. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could reject the entrapment defense and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hanapel" on Justia Law

In November 2018, 16-year-old S.G. was reported missing but returned to her Iowa high school the next day. She told the school resource officer, Matthew Poirier, that she had spent the weekend in Chicago at "Sweat's" father's home, earning money by packaging cocaine. She later admitted to making money through dates but denied engaging in sex acts. S.G. identified Keith Euring, Sr., also known as "Sweat," in a photo lineup. Her statements to medical personnel and police contained inconsistencies, including the amount of money given to Euring and whether she had sex with him. Law enforcement found evidence linking Euring to S.G.'s trips to Chicago, including phone records and hotel bookings.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa indicted Euring on multiple counts, including sex trafficking of a child. At trial, the government presented testimony from S.G. and her clients, as well as cell phone data suggesting Euring's involvement. S.G. testified that Euring facilitated her dates and took a portion of her earnings. The defense attempted to introduce extrinsic evidence of S.G.'s inconsistent statements and the grand-jury testimony of Dr. Muhammad Ali, who had interacted with S.G. during one of her trips. The district court excluded Dr. Ali's testimony and limited the use of extrinsic evidence, ruling that S.G. had not been given the opportunity to explain her statements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Ali's grand-jury testimony, as the government did not have a similar motive to develop his testimony at that stage. The court also upheld the district court's limitation on extrinsic evidence, interpreting Rule 613(b) to require that a witness be given the opportunity to explain or deny prior inconsistent statements. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Euring's conviction for sex trafficking of a child, affirming the district court's decision. View "United States v. Euring" on Justia Law

Gabriel White Plume, Sr. was convicted of multiple charges, including witness tampering and assault, following a violent incident involving his girlfriend, CLS. On January 10, 2023, White Plume, while under the influence of alcohol and methamphetamine, assaulted CLS with the help of his friend, Edison Jumping Eagle. White Plume choked CLS, forced her to perform oral sex, and inflicted severe physical injuries, including a deep laceration in her vagina. CLS was treated at a hospital for extensive injuries, including bruises, bite marks, and cigarette burns. White Plume recorded part of the assault, and these recordings were used as evidence at trial.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota indicted White Plume on nine counts, including sexual assault, assault, witness tampering, and distribution of a controlled substance. A jury convicted him on eight of the nine counts, and he was sentenced to 480 months of imprisonment. White Plume appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions on witness tampering and assault, and claimed double jeopardy for three of the charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on witness tampering, noting that White Plume attempted to persuade CLS to recant her statements through his daughter and direct communication. The court also upheld the assault conviction, determining that the evidence of CLS’s substantial bruising was sufficient to meet the statutory definition of substantial bodily injury. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the court applied the Blockburger test and concluded that each of the three challenged charges required proof of an element not required by the others, thus rejecting the double jeopardy argument. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Plume" on Justia Law

Christopher Edwards was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Law enforcement began investigating Edwards after receiving tips about his drug activities. They tracked his movements and conducted a controlled buy from his co-conspirator, Chloe Johnson. Multiple search warrants were executed, leading to the discovery of various drugs and cash. A significant amount of cocaine was found in Edwards's rental car, but it was not listed on the search warrant inventory.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Edwards's motion to suppress the evidence, finding the search warrants were supported by probable cause. Edwards's subsequent motion to suppress the cocaine due to a chain of custody issue was denied as untimely. At trial, the court overruled Edwards's objections regarding the cocaine's chain of custody and its altered appearance in photographs. The jury found Edwards guilty on both counts and attributed specific drug quantities to him. The court applied a career-offender enhancement based on Edwards's prior felony convictions and sentenced him to 220 months' imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that the district court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence and in its jury instructions regarding drug quantities and knowledge of specific drug types. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the cocaine, noting that any chain of custody defects went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also upheld the jury instructions, stating that the government need not prove Edwards knew the specific drug types involved in the conspiracy. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the career-offender enhancement and the imposed sentence. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In June 2018, Jonathan Stacy Berrier was indicted for enticing a minor in Arkansas to engage in sexual activity and traveling interstate for illicit sexual conduct. After the government presented incriminating communications between Berrier and the minor, Berrier pleaded guilty to the enticing charge in September 2020. The plea agreement included sentencing stipulations but allowed the government to present additional facts. At the plea hearing, Berrier admitted to one instance of sexual activity with the minor but denied multiple encounters.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas initially sentenced Berrier to 180 months, granting an upward variance based on disputed facts in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Berrier appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing due to procedural errors, including the late submission of the revised PSR. On remand, the district court appointed new counsel for Berrier. Berrier filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, citing ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, which the court denied without a hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Berrier argued that the government breached the plea agreement by seeking an upward variance and that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea without a hearing. The Eighth Circuit found that the government did not breach the plea agreement, as it only stipulated to the base offense level and specific increases, not variances. The court also held that Berrier's claims of ineffective assistance were contradicted by his statements at the plea hearing and were insufficient to warrant a hearing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Berrier's motion to withdraw his plea and the reimposed 180-month sentence. View "United States v. Berrier" on Justia Law

Marlon Winborn was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon after police arrested him following an investigatory stop. The stop was initiated based on multiple 911 calls reporting gunshots in an area known for similar incidents. The third caller provided specific details, including seeing two masked individuals near a red Saturn without a front license plate. When officers arrived at the scene, they found a red Saturn with occupants, including Winborn in the driver’s seat. During the stop, officers observed what they suspected to be marijuana and subsequently found firearms in the vehicle.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Winborn’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop, ruling that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop. Winborn then pled guilty to the firearm charge but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop based on the totality of the circumstances, including the 911 calls and the observations made at the scene. The court emphasized that the reliability of the third caller’s tip, combined with the officers’ observations and the proximity in time and location to the reported gunshots, justified the investigatory stop. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Winborn" on Justia Law

Kylee Starr pleaded guilty to three controlled substance offenses in October 2022. She was released to a sober living home while awaiting sentencing. In March 2023, the district court sentenced her to time served and 48 months of supervised release, granting safety-valve relief and a substantial assistance downward departure. Starr relapsed on fentanyl in June 2023 and was terminated from the sober living home. Her probation officer filed a petition to revoke her supervised release, and Starr admitted to committing Grade C violations.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota revoked her supervised release and imposed a 24-month imprisonment sentence, followed by three years of supervised release. The court varied upward from the advisory guidelines range of 3 to 9 months, citing the seriousness of Starr's violations and the danger she posed to others. The government had requested a 9-month sentence, while Starr's defense counsel argued for a 3-month sentence, emphasizing her previous year of sobriety and the potential negative impact of a long incarceration on her recovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court affirmed the district court's decision, noting that the district court had considered the relevant sentencing factors and the advisory guidelines. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an above-range sentence, given Starr's repeated inability to adhere to supervised release conditions and the danger she posed to others. The court also noted that the district court had considered mitigating factors but afforded them less weight than Starr would have preferred. View "United States v. Starr" on Justia Law

In 1993, Darrin Rick pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct involving four developmentally disabled girls and one seven-year-old boy. After failing to complete sex-offender treatment programs in prison, Hennepin County petitioned to civilly commit him as a "sexually dangerous person." Three psychologists, including two appointed by a Minnesota district court, agreed that Rick met the criteria for commitment. Consequently, he was committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. In 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined further review of his case. Years later, new expert reports suggested that the actuarial tools used to justify his commitment had overestimated his risk of recidivism.Rick filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that the new evidence showed he was "actually innocent" of being a sexually dangerous person. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota entertained the petition under the actual-innocence exception, finding that the reliance on outdated expert reports and actuarial data violated his due-process rights. The court granted habeas relief, allowing Rick to bypass the one-year statute of limitations for filing the petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether the actual-innocence exception could apply to civil commitments. The court concluded that the exception, traditionally used in criminal cases to address wrongful convictions, does not extend to civil commitments. The court emphasized that the exception is meant for cases involving criminal guilt or innocence, not predictions of future dangerousness. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief and remanded the case for denial of Rick's petition. View "Rick v. Harpstead" on Justia Law

Robert Hansen was convicted by two juries of multiple gun and drug crimes. The district court sentenced him to 300 months in prison for the first case and 120 months for the second, to run concurrently. Hansen appealed, seeking to overturn both verdicts and vacate his sentences.In the first case, Hansen was involved in three controlled buys of methamphetamine, which led to search warrants being executed at three locations. Investigators found drugs and guns at these locations, leading to Hansen's indictment on several charges, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of firearms. The jury convicted him on most charges, but the district court ordered a retrial due to juror misconduct. In the retrial, Hansen was again convicted on most charges. In the second case, Hansen was charged with unlawful possession of firearms found at two different locations. The jury convicted him on both counts.Hansen argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, that the district court erred by not including a special interrogatory in the verdict form, and that his counsel was ineffective. He also challenged the admission of certain testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the denial of his motion for a new trial. Additionally, he contested the drug quantity finding and the use-of-violence enhancement at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the jury instructions and verdict form were adequate. The court also held that the admission of testimony under Rule 404(b) was not an abuse of discretion and that the denial of a new trial was justified. Finally, the court upheld the sentencing enhancements, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law