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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to deprive a pretrial detainee of his civil rights and depriving the pretrial detainee of his civil rights. The court concluded that the government produced more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding of a conspiratorial agreement between defendant and three correctional officers to assault the pretrial detainee and then cover up the assault. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for assaulting the pretrial detainee a second time. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 45-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court properly considered the sentencing factors, explaining that defendant's conduct was more egregious, he was more responsible for the detainee's injuries, and he threatened his coconspirators to cover up the assault. View "United States v. Hewitt" on Justia Law

Defendant was previously convicted of disturbing, injuring, and destroying real property of the United States in 2018, after the jury found that he drained wetlands protected by a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conservation easement. The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's first conviction because of an erroneous jury instruction. After a 2019 bench trial, the district court found defendant guilty of the same offense.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a government witness to testify as a lay witness where her testimony was limited to her firsthand knowledge and personal experience mapping wetlands covered by the FWS easements; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony by the government's expert witness, an FWS wildlife biologist; the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the wetland areas defendant drained were identifiable wetlands covered by the easement; the district court did not err in declining to consult 7 C.F.R. 12.2(a)'s definition of wetlands to determine the scope of the easement or in excluding from trial any reference to the definition of wetlands or the criteria for delineating wetlands as set forth in the USDA regulations; viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the verdict was supported by substantial evidence; and the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's request to modify the Wetlands Restoration Plan ordered as restitution. View "United States v. Mast" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 190-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with defendant's drug trafficking offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity and was not unreasonable where the record readily explains why the district court reasonably would impose different sentences on the two conspirators. In this case, defendant possessed a firearm while his coconspirator did not. View "United States v. Bandstra" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions to suppress and his objection to the application of the career criminal enhancement under USSG 4B1.1(a). Defendant robbed a Sprint Wireless Express store in Davenport, Iowa at gunpoint, making off with cell phones and tablets. Defendant also left with a GPS tracker, which the police used to track him down.The court concluded that police had at least a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on the GPS tracker and, considering the tight window of opportunity officers had to locate a fleeing suspect, it was reasonable for police to rely on third-party GPS data. Furthermore, other factors supported the officers' suspicion, including the fact that defendant's vehicle matched the description given by a store employee and the police noticed unusual behavior from the occupants of the vehicle. The court also concluded that any error in the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the use of the show-up lineup was harmless. Finally, the district court did not err in determining defendant had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence for purposes of sentencing him as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of an unregistered destructive device. Defendant's convictions stemmed from an improvised explosive device that had exploded under defendant's ex-wife's car, damaging the car, the house where the ex-wife and their 13-year-old son was present, as well as a neighbor's house.The court concluded that, even assuming the prosecutor's remarks regarding defendant's alibi defense were improper, the court cannot say that they prejudiced defendant's rights to obtaining a fair trial. In this case, the comments were brief and limited to the prosecutor's closing argument and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence. Finally, the prosecutor's comments did not prejudice defendant where the government presented the jury with substantial evidence of defendant's guilt. View "United States v. McBaine" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court erred in applying the cross-reference to USSG 2A2.1(a)(1) where the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had used the gun to commit an attempted murder. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court meaningfully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including defendant's repeated disregard for the safety of the community and the need to protect the public. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In regard to the first warrant that authorized police to search for guns, items tending to show possession of guns, and electronic storage devices which would tend to store or send information relating to illegal drug trafficking, the court concluded that an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that the warrant permitted him to search for evidence of illegal gun possession, including defendant's cell phone. Therefore, the video found on the cell phone was admissible under the good faith doctrine. The court also concluded that there was a substantial basis to find that probable cause existed to seize defendant's phone and, even if there were not, the court would nonetheless conclude that the good faith exception applied. View "United States v. Eggerson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case where defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue or to transfer venue to another judicial district. The court explained that, taking the allegations in the indictment as true, there was venue in the Eastern District of Missouri to try the allegation that defendant conspired to commit money laundering in "the Eastern District of Missouri" and elsewhere. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have transferred venue to the Central District of California. In this case, the district court correctly observed that the investigation into the drug proceeds was conducted in St. Louis, the relevant documents were in St. Louis, witness expenses for defendant's defense would be paid by the government, and defendant's counsel was in St. Louis. View "United States v. Hardaway" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request to take back his guilty plea to bank robbery. The court concluded that, by failing to object to his first attorney's performance during the plea hearing, defendant foreclosed using the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel route to plea-withdrawal.The court concluded that defendant's 210-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's mitigating factors, and provided a reasonable basis for its sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sisk" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, and several firearm offenses. Defendant, a Native American, claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a cross section of the community because he had no Native Americans on his jury.Even assuming Native Americans are underrepresented in the Central Division's jury pool, as the district court suggests they may be, the court concluded that defendant has not shown the underrepresentation "is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." The court explained that the practice of using voter registration rolls to compile the master jury wheel is expressly permitted under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, which governs the manner for selecting federal jurors. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment's fair cross section requirement applies only to the composition of the jury pool, not the final composition of the jury.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial in a different venue. In this case, defendant agreed to the for-cause strikes of Native Americans and did not contest the non-discriminatory reasons the government offered for a peremptory strikes of the remaining Native Americans on the jury panel. Furthermore, defendant did not seek a change of venue on these grounds at jury selection or at any other time during trial. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on the conspiracy count; evidentiary challenges failed; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. View "United States v. Erickson" on Justia Law