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

Petitioner, convicted of starting a fire that damaged her failing tavern, appealed the district court's denial of a new trial and 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief. The court concluded that there was no Brady violation where the government did not suppress exculpatory evidence shown on an original videotape, which contained footage from surveillance cameras, by representing that a DVD copy was a fair and accurate copy of the original. Petitioner's trial attorney testified that he and petitioner viewed the DVD's poor quality images before trial, were aware the DVD disc was copied from the original surveillance video, and made no attempt to view the original. Further, an ATF agent had the DVD copy created for a legitimate purpose, viewed the copy after it was created, and concluded that it accurately represented what the original VHS tape depicted. Finally, the video was admitted to trial and petitioner failed to prove what additional information the jury would have gained by viewing the unenhanced original at trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court granted petitioner's motion to supplement the appendix on appeal. View "Masten v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence for one count of witness retaliation. Defendant's presentence report applied a cross-reference under U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(c)(1) for obstructing a criminal prosecution. The court concluded that, based on the record, the guideline commentary for section 2J1.2(c)(1), and the court's precedent in United States v. Gallimore, the district court did not err by applying the cross reference for obstructing a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Muckle" on Justia Law

Defendants Young and Mock were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, resulting in death and murder-for-hire, resulting in death. The court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not err in admitting statements from witnesses that Young and Mock solicited their help in finding someone to murder Young's husband; the admission of a deputy's testimony regarding Mock's alibi did not violate Young's confrontation rights; admission of a photocopied note was harmless; the district court did not adversely affect Mock's substantial rights by excluding testimony relating to Young's second account of events to a sheriff; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions to sever their trial; the district court did not clearly err in rejecting defendant's Batson challenge regarding Jurors 2, 12, 28, and 35; and the evidence was sufficient to prove that Young paid Mock consideration for her assistance in murdering Young's husband. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated after Sgt. Earl Eaton pepper-sprayed him when he refused to return to his cell after showering, and Cpl. Renita White turned off the water, preventing him from rinsing off the pepper spray for ten to fifteen minutes. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim where plaintiff was warned that he would be pepper-sprayed if he did not comply with the order to "catch the cuffs," plaintiff threw an object or spit on Eaton three times, and Eaton deployed a small amount of pepper spray after each act of defiance. Further, there was no specific evidence of malicious motive to harm, or evidence that the force used was excessive. The court concluded that Eaton was entitled to qualified immunity on the delayed decontamination claim where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Eaton acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of White's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Burns v. Eaton, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the prosecution breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and by agreeing with the district court's calculation of a drug quantity higher than in the plea agreement. Defendant wrote letters to the district court asking to be viewed apart from the conspiracy and to be found guilty for an offense involving only 50 to 200 grams, rather than the 500 or more grams to which he had pled. The court concluded that, because defendant had acted in a manner inconsistent with his accepting responsibility, the government was entitled to rely on that information in not requesting a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court also concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by agreeing to sentence defendant to a base offense level of 38. Because defendant could not demonstrate plain error, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rendon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Red Cross on her claims, inter alia, of race discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination based on the Red Cross' decision not to promote her and based on the failure to train her; the decision to suspend and terminate plaintiff was not a result of race discrimination but, rather, because plaintiff failed to meet her employer's legitimate expectations; even if plaintiff was able to show that she had met her employer's legitimate expectations, she failed to show that similarly situated employees committed the same conduct but were treated differently. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting Red Cross summary judgment on the retaliation claim where plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to show a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment actions taken against her. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the Red Cross summary judgment on plaintiff's outrage claim. View "Robinson v. American Red Cross" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on the government's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and its misstatements during closing arguments. The court concluded that much of the alleged inconsistency between the arresting officer's police report and his testimony at trial is semantic; likewise, the officers' mishandling of the sock does not negate their testimony that they had observed defendant carrying the sock; defendant failed to prove that the government's delay in disclosing the information at issue deprived that information of its usefulness and that this deprivation materially affected the outcome of his trial; the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and the probative value of his proffered evidence is minimal; and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial under Brady v. Maryland. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial based on a prosecutor's remarks which could be construed as improper where they did not prejudice defendant. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

D&G filed suit against wholesalers under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15(a), and moved for class certification. The court concluded that this case presented a factual dispute about the real terms of the wholesalers' agreement and this genuine material factual dispute prevented summary judgment as to whether a per se violation occurred; the court denied summary judgment under the rule of reason where D&G submitted enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute about the relevant market and the injury caused by the wholesalers' alleged antitrust violation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification for all SuperValu customers in the Midwest region; the court vacated the denial of D&G's request to certify a narrower class of SuperValu customers who were charged according to the ABS formula and supplied from Champaign, Illinois; and the district court correctly concluded that 15 U.S.C. 15b does not render D&G's claims untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "D&G, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a victim of sexual assault while in pretrial detention in jail, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and pendent state law, alleging claims against those he considered responsible for the assault. At issue in this interlocutory appeal are plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment failure to train claims against the sheriff and the jail administrator. The court denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the court had jurisdiction over the case under the collateral order doctrine. On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiff's failure to train and supervise claims must be judged by Farmer v. Brennan's subjective deliberate indifference standard where plaintiff must prove that the prison officials personally knew of the constitutional risk posed by their inadequate training or supervision and proximately caused him injury by failing to take sufficient remedial action. The court concluded that the district court's findings of fact adequately supported the district court's legal conclusion that the administrator was not presently entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the administrator failed to train a jailer regarding the jail's policy to lock the cell doors overnight. The court found nothing but speculation, conjecture, or fantasy to rebut the sheriff's testimony that he did not know of the substantial risk posed by the administrator's failure to train the jailer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the administrator, reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the sheriff, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walton v. Dawson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State and the Iowa Board of Parole, alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on defendants' failure to conduct in-person parole interviews. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), and dismissal of his complaint was proper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Martin v. State of Iowa, et al." on Justia Law