United States v. Cotton, No. 14-3141 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that both the government and the district court correctly recited some of the purposes for which evidence of prior convictions may be used, but the district court did not analyze the purpose for which the evidence was being offered in this case. Mere recitation of FRE 404(b) without an accompanying case-specific analysis risks couching criminal propensity in terms of knowledge, intent, or lack of mistake. Nonetheless, the court concluded that any error in admitting defendant's prior convictions was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion allowing defendant's post-arrest statement to be admitted for impeachment purposes; the statement was not offered as non-hearsay substantive evidence; and the statement was admitted under FRE 806 for the limited purpose of supporting the credibility of the declarant. Use of a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate the credibility of a witness who has been impeached by a prior inconsistent statement is appropriate when the statement contextualizes, clarifies, or amplifies the meaning of the witness’s testimony or inconsistent statement. The district court’s careful attention to the admission of the rehabilitation evidence presented supports the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting all of the proffered evidence for both parties regarding the credibility of the co-conspirator statements. Finally, there was no Brady violation associated with the government's failure to disclose the photograph at issue. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction. Conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine is affirmed. Although the district court and the government recited some of the purposes for which evidence of prior conviction may be used without an accompanying case-specific analysis, any error in admitting the evidence of prior convictions was harmless. District court did not err in admitting co-conspirator's post arrest statement to rehabilitate another co-conspirator's statement, as it was offered for impeachment purposes, was non-hearsay co-conspirator statements, and was admitted solely under Rule 806. Prior consistent statements are not admissible as rehabilitative evidence, but may be admitted to explain or impeach inconsistent statement. In this case the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting all the proffered evidence. District court did not err in concluding the government's suppression of the photograph used for identification purposes did not constitute a Brady violation, as there was no reasonable probability the result would have been different had the earlier photograph been disclosed to defendant; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Judge Colloton concurs in part and concurs in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.