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

Petitioner filed a habeas action alleging that he received ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel when his lawyer failed to investigate potential impeachment evidence of his own expert witness, and that his death sentence was unconstitutional due to flaws in the jury instructions. The district court agreed and vacated petitioner's death sentence.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment vacating petitioner's death sentence, concluding that counsel was not deficient by reasonably relying on the professional community to vet an expert. Furthermore, petitioner cannot show that, under the circumstances, no competent lawyer could have made the choice to trust the legal community's appraisal of the witness. Even if further investigation was more prudent, it is not clear that the investigation should have covered the witness's falsified lab reports. Therefore, petitioner did not overcome the presumption that counsel performed reasonably by not investigating the witness's credentials.The court also concluded that there was no substantial likelihood that the calling of an alternative psychiatric witness would have led to a different result; the state habeas court did not err in finding that petitioner was not prejudiced by sentencing counsel's failure to call a psychiatrist, and post-conviction counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise the issue; and the district court erred in concluding that the sentencing instructions violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and that Missouri's capital sentencing system violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). View "McLaughlin v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 180-month sentence for offenses involving drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's pre-trial motion for disclosure of coconspirator statements where defendant did not object to the magistrate judge's order and thus he waived his right to review. Even if the court excused defendant's waiver, the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion. In this case, the magistrate judge recognized appropriately the burden that would be placed on the government by the pre-trial identification of coconspirator statements and the availability of the Bell procedure. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's buyer-seller instruction regarding the drug trafficking conspiracy and there was no plain error under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. Defendant's remaining argument regarding his sentence is foreclosed by circuit precedent. View "United States v. Merrett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant shot the victim. Taken as a whole, the forensic evidence, expert testimony, and lay witness testimony were sufficient to support the district court's finding and its corresponding application of the sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Quinto-Pascual" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and violating his supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by double-counting where defendant's sentences penalized distinct aspects of his conduct and distinct harms. In this case, the Sentencing Guidelines instruct courts to do what the district court did here: (1) add criminal history points because defendant committed the firearm offense while on supervised release; and (2) sentence him consecutively for the firearm offense and the revocation. View "United States v. Roe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 360-month sentence for unlawfully possessing a gun. Defendant's conviction stemmed from a botched gun sale to a confidential informant.The court concluded that the district court did abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's six past felony convictions where the evidence was material and showed defendant's intent to possess it. Furthermore, the district court's limiting instruction diminished any danger of unfair prejudice from the admission of all six prior bad acts. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mere-presence instruction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's upward variance did not amount to a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Drew" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to a police officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff on behalf of her two minor sons. The claims stemmed from a gang-related stakeout in a residential neighborhood that resulted in a car chase and subsequent car crash. The officer stopped and questioned the boys at gunpoint and held them for seven minutes until backup arrived.The court concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the prolonged-investigative-detention claim and that the district court erred in holding that triable facts remain on whether the officer unlawfully prolonged the investigative detention of the boys. The court further concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the de-facto-arrest-claim where, based on the totality of the circumstances, the investigative detention did not become an arrest here because the officer only used handcuffs briefly (under two minutes) when he had two indications that one of the boys may have been armed. Furthermore, the officer should receive qualified immunity on the unlawful-search claim where a frisk of one of the boys was authorized to protect officer safety and to maintain status quo during the course of the stop. Finally, the officer did not use unreasonable force when he pointed his gun at the boys while he waited for backup and before the situation was under control. Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. View "Pollreis v. Marzolf" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for distribution of child pornography. The court concluded that there was no reversible error in suppressing defendant's motion to suppress evidence where the information provided in the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to support the probable cause determination. In light of the collecting habits of those who use child pornography, the court concluded that there was a fair probability that defendant had not deleted the image that he uploaded, and that more images would be found. Furthermore, the information was not stale. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion where the district court had varied downward from the guideline range and where the district court exercised its substantial latitude in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Defendant moved twice to suppress evidence of guns, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia that the Kansas City police seized from his apartment. After the district court denied both motions, defendant appealed.Because the Eighth Circuit concluded that the record does not contain adequate findings of fact for the court to resolve the appeal, the court remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of making the supplemental findings of fact necessary to resolve defendant's Fourth Amendment claims, while retaining jurisdiction. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, on remand, that plaintiff has met his burden of showing that he is intellectually disabled and affirmed the district court's vacatur of plaintiff's death sentence.The court found that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in considering plaintiff's childhood IQ scores in accordance with this court's instructions; the district court did not clearly err in applying a +/-5 SEM to plaintiff's childhood IQ test scores; and thus the district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff satisfied the intellectual functioning deficit prong under Arkansas law. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff established a deficit in adaptive functioning under the second prong of the Arkansas statute. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the requisite deficits manifested before age 18, and the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff has adaptive deficits. View "Jackson v. Payne" on Justia Law

This case arose out of defendant's incessant and extreme harassment of his ex-girlfriend, L.L., and her partner, D.B. A jury found defendant guilty on all counts of a 15-count indictment and the district court sentenced him to 600 months imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction on Count 8 for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) where the commission of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), the predicate crime of violence, is impermissibly broad because an individual may be convicted under that section for committing arson against his or her own property whereas possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of section 924(c) requires the government to prove that the defendant committed the predicate crime against the property or person of another.The court affirmed defendant's convictions for one count of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle; two counts of stalking; two counts of interstate domestic violence; two counts of receipt and possession of an unregistered destructive device; two counts of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered destructive device; one count of fraudulent use of a means of identification of another person; one count of malicious use of explosive materials; one count of using explosive materials during the commission of a federal felony; one count of tampering with a witness; and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. Finally, the court vacated defendant's sentence in its entirety so that the district court may reconfigure defendant's sentencing plan to guarantee that his sentence satisfies the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mink" on Justia Law