United States v. Tyerman, No. 12-2026 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a stolen firearm. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated where he waived the attorney-client privilege; his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by a fundamentally unfair trial; the district court did not err by admitting the prior-acts evidence of the events leading up to the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial and a new trial; the district court did not err by denying the motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence; none of the alleged errors were errors and therefore, there was no cumulative effect; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on the attempted escape. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. Defendant's disclosure to his attorney about location of gun, made during plea negotiations, constituted an implicit waiver of attorney-client privilege and thus his Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. District court did not err in denying motion to dismiss case after firearm was destroyed because firearm was mistakenly destroyed and having firearm in the courtroom would have been more inculpatory than exculpatory; district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence of destruction, in rejecting spoliation instruction absent evidence of bad faith and prejudice, in admitting prior-acts evidence; and in denying motion for mistrial and for new trial. Evidence was sufficient. District court did not err by applying a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on an attempted escape.
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.