United States v. Smialek, No. 19-2342 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress statements where the special agent attempted to give defendant a Miranda warning but was repeatedly interrupted by defendant, who was noncompliant and insisted on knowing the date of the robbery. In this case, defendant's alleged alibi was not prompted by interrogation.
The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the jury improperly heard testimony about his prior bank robbery convictions, because the district court gave a curative instruction and there was substantial evidence of defendant's guilt. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have sua sponte dismissed his indictment because the Government presented inaccurate testimony to the grand jury. In this case, the jury convicted defendant without the disputed evidence and the district court did not plainly err by failing to dismiss the indictment sua sponte.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Conviction. Smialek appeals his conviction for bank robbery. Denial of his motion to suppress his alibi statements, offered before receiving Miranda warnings because he continually cut off the officer, was not error because Smialek's statements were not prompted by interrogation. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial when jury improperly heard testimony about Smialek's prior bank robbery convictions, as the court gave a curative instruction and there was substantial evidence of guilt. Claim that indictment should have been dismissed because the grand jury heard inaccurate information is reviewed for plain error; the guilty verdict renders any errors in the charging decision not prejudicial and thus not plain error.
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.