United States v. Horton, No. 12-3627 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Horton and Holmes were convicted of multiple crimes stemming from their involvement in a cocaine-distribution ring. The court concluded that some of defendants' arguments were waived because they failed to raise them at the pretrial suppression hearing and also failed to raise these arguments at trial; because defendants failed to show that the Government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland when it excluded fingerprint comparisons at trial, their claim failed; the Government's use of its confidential informant failed to establish a due process claim where the informant's misconduct could not be attributed to the Government; the Government did not impermissibly intimidate Horton's witness to keep her from testifying; Horton's allegation that DEA agents stole approximately $9,000 from his residence while executing a search warrant was not sufficient to support defendants' claim of outrageous government conduct that violated their right to due process; the district court did not err in failing to hold a Remmer hearing to investigate the possibility that a juror may have overheard a conversation between Holmes's defense counsel and Holmes's family; defendants failed to show that the Western District of Missouri's juror selection plan violated the fair-cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment; and the court rejected Holmes's three separate arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences.
Court Description: Criminal cases - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendants failed to raise their Fourth Amendment challenges to the government's extensive pre-arrest surveillance in their pretrial suppression hearing or at trial, and the claims were waived; claims that the government failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence were too speculative to support a Brady claim; claims of outrageous government conduct rejected; by dismissing a juror, the court took adequate measures regarding defendants' suggestion that the juror may have been exposed to improper information; claim that Western Missouri's juror selection plan violated the fair-cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment rejected as defendants failed to provide any evidence that the jury panel was not selected from a fair and impartial cross-section of the community; defendant's Holmes's claim that the district court erred in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence of prior convictions rejected as the prior convictions were relevant to state of mind and were similar in kind and close in time; the PSR's failure to properly provide that Holmes was facing a life sentence could not be shown to be plain error requiring relief as Holmes could not show that he would have received a lesser sentence but for the error since he faced, and was aware that he faced, a mandatory life sentence; challenge to the offense conduct portion of Holmes's PSR was too vague to alert the court and the government to any specific, disputed issues.
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.