United States v. Brown, No. 14-3189 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseWhile in prison, Brown incorporated “Softwear Group.” After his release, Brown obtained an investment from Armstrong, a prison friend, who was in the residential mortgage business. Brown earned $5,000 per month. When the company floundered, Brown purchased five homes in 2006. Brown inflated the purchase price on his loan applications, prepared by Armstrong. He represented that he would occupy each house and that he earned $15,000 per month. Brown received kickbacks totaling $224,500. Brown was charged with wire fraud and conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. The prosecution presented testimony from Parton, the loan closer. On cross examination, defense counsel questioned Parton about statements she allegedly made to a private investigator, Reeder, by telephone. Brown called Reeder to testify about that interview. The court ruled that Parton’s testimony that she could not recall making certain statements was not inconsistent with her alleged statements as recounted by Reeder, so that Reeder’s testimony could not be used to impeach Parton, and instructed the jury to disregard Reeder’s testimony. Armstrong took a plea agreement and testified. Defense counsel asked Armstrong about his possible sentence, eliciting testimony that his “criminal history” was going to be “quite high.” The court sustained the government’s objection. The court sentenced Brown to 87 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting his argument that the court violated his right of confrontation by limiting cross-examination of Armstrong and by excluding Reeder’s testimony regarding Parton’s interview.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Claim that the trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by improperly limiting his cross-examination of the government's witnesses rejected; defendant failed to lay an adequate foundation for admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statements.
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.