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

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting screenshots representing the online content of a website; the district court did not commit reversible error by admitting the Government's Exhibit 51, a summary chart containing information regarding the investigation; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's requested instruction regarding the term "distribute;" and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or his request for an evidentiary hearing because he failed to establish juror bias or misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Needham" on Justia Law

Defendants Delgrosso and Cain were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Delgrosso also was found guilty of failing to file IRS Form 8300. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a new trial based on Jerry Wright's post-trial affidavit because, even if Wright testified or the affidavit were admitted, the Government could impeach Wright's credibility by introducing evidence of his seven prior felony convictions. Furthermore, even if the jury believed Wright's statements, that does not mean that it would likely acquit defendants. In this case, the Government provided ample evidence that would allow the jury to conclude that Delgrosso and Cain knew or willfully blinded themselves to the fact that Wright acquired his cash through drug sales. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delgrosso's motion for a new trial based on Government misconduct under Brady v. Maryland where it was untimely and, even if it was timely, his allegations either relate to issues that were irrelevant or were directly contradicted; the district court did not plainly err by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err in denying Delgrosso's motion for acquittal where sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict; and the district court did not clearly err in denying Delgrosso safety-valve relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Delgrosso" on Justia Law

Jeannie K. May filed suit seeking to recover damages under state and federal law arising from the debt-collection practices of Nationstar. After a jury found in favor of May on her invasion-of-privacy claim and her claim that Nationstar negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681, the jury awarded May compensatory damages on both claims and punitive damages on her invasion-of-privacy claim. The court concluded that there was ample evidence to support the jury's award of punitive damages and Nationstar's renewed assertions that it acted in good faith provided no legal basis to vacate the jury's verdict. In this case, the record reflected that May contacted Nationstar repeatedly in order to resolve the issue with her account; rather than suspend its efforts based on its erroneous assessment of her debt, Nationstar aggressively pursued collection, posted May's home for foreclosure and conducted inspections of her residence; Nationstar employees spoke to May in a mocking and sarcastic manner; and May suffered physical ailments from the stress caused by Nationstar's conduct. The court concluded that the $400,000 punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive because of the reprehensible nature of Nationstar's conduct; the 8-to-1 ratio of the award was not unconstitutionally excessive; and the award did not violate due process. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by excluding the testimony of another borrower; and the jury instruction regarding the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 26 U.S.C. 2601, was not plainly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "May v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of landowners subject to Sho-Me's easements, filed suit against Sho-Me and Tech for trespass and unjust enrichment after the companies used fiber-optic cable for commercial telecommunications. The district court certified the class and granted it summary judgment on liability. A jury trial was held on the issue of damages and the jury awarded plaintiffs over $79 million. The court concluded that Sho-Me and Tech's use exceeded the scope of the easements. The court explained that, under Missouri law, the companies exceeded their rights by using the fiber-optic cable for unauthorized purposes and thus their use became a trespass. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to identify any Missouri cases recognizing unjust enrichment as a remedy for unauthorized land use. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. The court noted that, on remand, plaintiffs may choose to pursue damages on their trespass claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Biffle v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former transport deputy for the county, filed suit against Sheriff Andy Shock, in his individual and official capacities, for unlawful employment termination under state and federal law. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the deprivation of his First Amendment right to free association. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against the sheriff in his official capacity because, under Arkansas law and the policies promoted by the county, the sheriff did not act as a final policymaker in the employment decisions of the sheriff's office where such decisions were subject to review by the quorum court. However, the court vacated the finding of qualified immunity for the sheriff in his individual capacity because the district court should have applied the Elrod-Branti analysis to determine whether a government employer could violate an employee's First Amendment rights even if acting under the mistaken belief that the employee was affiliated with a certain candidate. The court explained that the Elrod-Brandi test applied when a constitutional right at issue involved joining, working for or contributing to the political party and candidates of the employee's choice. Therefore, the court remanded that issue for the district court to apply the analysis in the Elrod-Branti line of cases. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Thompson v. Shock" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her 48 month sentence and conviction for assaulting a federal officer with her car. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conviction; the district court properly denied admitting a video statement defendant made to a VA investigator because the probative value of additional relevant evidence of intent and credibility was substantially outweighed by its cumulative nature; the district court did not err in its degree-of-injury finding; the district court did not err in applying USSG 2A2.2 for aggravated assault rather than for obstructing or impeding officers, a six-level official victim enhancement under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1), and a six-level enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(3)(E); and a 48 month sentence achieved through a 140 month downward variance was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 480 months in prison after he was convicted of second degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in crediting a law enforcement officer's testimony that defendant volunteered information regarding his drug use and lack of sleep; evidence regarding defendant's physical and mental health was properly admitted; and, although it was error to admit defendant's response to the officer's question regarding the last time he cut his hair, the admission was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence; the district court did not err in denying defendant a surrebuttal closing argument; the district court did not err in considering and explicitly rejecting defendant's request for a variance under USSG 5K2.10, 5K2.10, and under the forthcoming 2016 Sentencing Guidelines; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a continuance in order for him to obtain a mental health evaluation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 41 month sentence after being convicted of trafficking in counterfeit mark goods. The court concluded that the district court did not err by including the full value of the goods seized in a Kansas sale in defendant's infringement amount and by applying a twelve-level enhancement; the district court did not err by denying defendant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility where defendant did not voluntarily terminate or withdraw from his involvement in criminal conduct; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered factors including defendant's continued criminal conduct and the seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jawad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for multiple drug offenses and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's drug convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but defendant's felon in possession conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence where a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's roommate had a weapon that defendant did not know about; the district court improperly admitted Exhibit 37, an Arkansas Parole Board Waiver of Revocation Form, because the limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to defendant; and admission of Exhibit 37 was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence. Because the court reversed as to the felon in possession conviction, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a state trooper under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging damages based on the trooper's unconstitutional initiation of a traffic stop and questioning, detainment, and arrest of plaintiff without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. After removal to federal court, the district court denied the trooper summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded, however, that the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, the trooper pointed to objective, particular facts and explained why these facts led him to conclude he had reasonable suspicion to briefly extend defendant's detention to determine if a drug dog would alert to the exterior of a pickup truck traveling from Arizona to Illinois on Interstate 80. The court noted that more recent Eighth Circuit decisions have distinguished cases on which the district court primarily relied, and found no Fourth Amendment violations, let alone violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court explained that its prior cases have found reasonable suspicion upholding the extension of traffic stops by officers relying on similar facts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "De La Rosa v. White" on Justia Law