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

A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated sexual abuse, and the district court sentenced him to 440 months in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant claims the district court erred “by failing to instruct the jury that it had to agree on the specific act of sexual abuse in order to convict.” However, Defendant cites no authority that failure to give a specific unanimity instruction. To the contrary, the Eighth Circuit has held that jurors need not agree on a specific sexual act to reach a unanimous verdict.   Further, Defendant contends the district court erred in admitting hearsay statements regarding the reports of abuse. The court wrote that the statement was limited in scope to the victim’s disclosure of the abuse, not the specifics of it. But even if the statements were inadmissible hearsay, their admission would be harmless given the other evidence against Defendant.   Moreover, Defendant maintains he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial because the government’s closing argument “distorted its burden of proof and unfairly mischaracterized Defendant’s theory of the case.” Even if the closing were improper, under plain error review, the Eighth Circuit wrote it will “reverse only under exceptional circumstances,” which requires that Defendant show “a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged error.” The evidence and the district court’s instructions show this is not an exceptional case where the conviction is overturned based solely on a prosecutor’s statements during closing argument. View "United States v. Adam Poitra" on Justia Law

After a jury convicted Defendant, former Sheriff of Franklin County, Arkansas, of depriving two jail detainees of their constitutional rights by subjecting them to unreasonable force that resulted in bodily injury, the district court sentenced Defendant to 48 months imprisonment, followed by 2 years of supervised release. Defendant challenged both his conviction and his sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court’s finding that Defendant attempted to influence Ball’s testimony was not clearly erroneous and sufficiently supports the district court’s application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The district court sentenced Defendant to a within-Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment. Defendant argued in a cursory fashion that his sentence is “greater than necessary,” given the alleged de minimis nature of his victims’ injuries and the purported bias of the witnesses at trial. However, the district court discussed Section 3553(a) factors in-depth and considered the proffered mitigating and aggravating circumstances in crafting the sentence. View "United States v. Anthony Boen" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking and brandishing-a-firearm charges and received a 179-month sentence. He now argued that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in determining his sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. He first argued that the district court procedurally erred by referring to the JSIN statistics. He claimed that he had a right under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to have notice of, and therefore time to review, all material information relied on by the district court at sentencing.  The court explained that it found that any error made by the district court in interpreting the JSIN statistics “did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding” because the district court focused on Defendant, not the data. If the district court erred in this case, its error was harmless.   Further, Defendant’s 179-month, within-guidelines sentence reflects the district court’s careful weighing of the Section 3553(a) factors. As the district court did not fail to consider or properly weigh any relevant factor or otherwise commit a clear error of judgment, the court concluded that Defendant’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Ryan McDaniel" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender. His term of supervised release began on September 2, 2020. At a revocation hearing, Defendant admitted to several substance- abuse violations of his supervised release. The district court revoked his supervision and imposed a ten-month sentence of imprisonment to be followed by a one-year term of supervised release. Defendant married a woman with three minor children from a previous relationship, and he asked the district court to add “stepchildren” to “biological and legally adopted children” for purposes of setting up supervised visits. The district court denied his request. Defendant appealed, challenging the special conditions of his post-revocation supervision.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that contrary to Defendant’s characterization, the Court does not interpret Special Condition 2 as an outright prohibition on visits with his stepchildren. As Defendant points out, the condition does not include “stepchildren” in the category of minors with whom supervised visits may be arranged with the help of the probation office. But, more generally, the condition’s first sentence prohibits “contact” with minors “without the prior written consent of the United States Probation Office.” A fair reading of this restriction would permit Defendant to visit his stepchildren so long as he obtained the requisite permission from the proper source. The court read Special Condition 2 as barring Defendant from visiting his stepchildren only when the probation office does not give him permission to do so beforehand. View "United States v. Shawn Hutson" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on separate counts of producing, receiving, and possessing child pornography. He moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the warrantless seizure of his cell phone, including the images found on the phone, the evidence seized at his house, and the images found on the hard drive. Defendant also moved to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement. The district court denied Defendant’s motion in its entirety. Shrum entered conditional guilty pleas to one count of producing child pornography and one count of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. Defendant timely appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued that his cell phone was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Sergeant had probable cause to believe Defendant’s phone contained contraband or evidence of a crime. The Sergeant had seen photos of text messages between A.B. and Defendant that indicated they had engaged in sexual activity, perhaps as recently as on the camping trip the night before. Further, there was a fair probability that those text messages, or related evidence of unlawful conduct, would be found on Defendant’s phone. Exigent circumstances were also present. When the Sergeant did find the victim, it appeared that she had just showered, suggesting to the Sergeant that she may have washed away physical evidence of sexual contact. Given the totality of the circumstances, the court agreed with the district court that the good-faith exception applies. View "United States v. Keith Shrum" on Justia Law

A jury convicted three Defendants (“D1”, “D2”, and “D3”) of conspiring to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The jury also convicted D1 and D3 of possessing 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. All three Defendants appealed the denial of a motion to suppress and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. They concede officers properly stopped their vehicle for commercial inspection but argue the officers subsequently exceeded the permissible scope of the inspection. In addition, D2 appealed his sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers developed probable cause before their actions exceeded the permissible scope of a commercial inspection and Defendants’ other arguments lack merit. The court found that the district court properly concluded that asking a driver for log books, bills of lading, and safety equipment; inquiring as to ownership, registration, and insurance; inspecting a vehicle’s exterior; and looking in a trailer for safety equipment or to inspect cargo securement are all proper aspects of a Level II inspection. Further, the district court did not commit clear error in finding the facts as a whole, including reliance on the dog, provided probable cause. Further, as to D2’s sentencing challenge, the district court did not clearly err in finding him to be a leader and applying an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 3B1.1. The resulting within-range sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal, and D2 presents no persuasive arguments to suggest this is the “rare case” where such a presumption is rebutted. View "United States v. Tu Anh Nguyen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a judgment of the district court committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for medical care and treatment under 18 U.S.C. Section 4246. The court found that Defendant presently suffered from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release from custody posed a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the findings underlying the commitment were not clearly erroneous. The court explained that the district court’s finding that Defendant posed a substantial risk to persons or property was adequately supported in the record. The court relied on the unanimous recommendation of the experts. The experts observed that the most reliable predictor of future violence is past violence, and they detailed Defendant’s history of random and unpredictable violent actions. The court further found that the parties have not made a sufficient showing to justify sealing the briefs in this appeal. View "United States v. Dewayne Gray" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant challenged an order of the district court denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and concluded there was no error. The court explained that probable cause “is not a high bar: It requires only the kind of fair probability on which reasonable and prudent people, not legal technicians, act.” In this case, the detective was not required to exclude all reasonable possibilities that Defendant was ignorant of the scale; he needed only a fair probability that she knew what was in the console. The combination of Defendant’s control over the vehicle, her proximity to the console, her history of an arrest for drugs, and her association with a backseat passenger who possessed drugs was sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. View "United States v. Jessica Mathes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transfer of obscene material to a minor. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison. He appealed his conviction. Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting parts of his signed plea agreement that the court had not accepted.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that at trial, Defendant’s prior counsel testified that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily signed the plea agreement, noting that he read, discussed, and explained each paragraph to him, specifically covering the waiver. Defendant believes the district court should not have relied on his prior counsel’s testimony alone because it contradicted Defendant’s testimony. But it is the district court’s role to determine the credibility of testimony, and that determination is “virtually unassailable on appeal.” Accordingly, the court found that the district court did not err in finding Defendant waived his Rule 410 rights and admitting parts of the plea agreement.   Further, because Defendant waived his attorney-client privilege on communications about the plea agreement and because his prior counsel properly testified to refute Defendant’s testimony, the district court did not err in allowing the testimony. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to show Defendant took a substantial step toward the enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b). View "United States v. Jeremy Hahn" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of possessing at least five kilograms of cocaine. Defendant retained new counsel and moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, raising numerous issues. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. His principal argument, raised for the first time in the post-verdict motion, is that law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by using expired tracking warrants to locate him when he was arrested returning to the Twin Cities from a trip to Chicago with thirteen pounds of cocaine in his vehicle.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment argument at issue was an issue reasonably available for a pretrial motion to suppress that Defendant did not raise. However, the court agreed to review for plain error.  The court reasoned that nothing seriously affected the fairness or integrity of this prosecution. Whether the tracking warrants expired when Defendant was arrested, interviewed, and released on October 7 is an issue the court does not decide. However, it is hardly free from doubt, so any error in not reaching the issue was not plain. Moreover, Defendant fled when the police attempted to stop him on November 1, leading them on a hazardous high-speed chase that provided probable cause to arrest Defendant for resisting arrest, failing to stop after a collision, and reckless driving. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial based on the alleged expiration of the tracking warrants. View "United States v. John Pickens, Jr." on Justia Law