United States v. Robinson, No. 14-3503 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a former police officer, appealed his conviction for charges stemming from allegations that he distributed marijuana to a confidential informant (CI). The court rejected defendant's Brady v. Maryland claim that the government had a duty to disclose a detective's misconduct prior to the detective's testimony at defendant's trial. The court concluded that, when the evidence at issue is misconduct by a government witness, and that misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or prosecution of the defendant, is known only to the witness himself, and could not have been discovered by the prosecutor through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the court is reluctant to conclude that such evidence should be imputed to the prosecutor. The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the alleged Brady evidence was material where the detective was not the only officer to testify about the controlled drug buy that resulted in defendant’s marijuana-distribution conviction. Because the marijuana-distribution conviction was not obtained in violation of Brady, the court rejected defendant's argument that the government’s introduction of that conviction at his second trial entitles him to a new trial on the false-statement charge. Likewise, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the marijuana-distribution conviction. The court further concluded that the district court’s impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recuse; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and, in regard to the false-statement count, defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of vindictiveness, and so the district court did not commit plain error in rejecting defendant’s claim for relief on that ground. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. With respect to defendant's Brady challenge based on the prosecutor's failure to disclose past misconduct by a police officer, when the evidence at issue is misconduct by a government witness, and that misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or prosecution of defendant, is known only to the witness himself, and could not have been discovered by the prosecutor through due diligence, the court is reluctant to conclude that such evidence should be imputed to the prosecutor; here, defendant failed to show the information was material, even if could be used to impeach the officer, as other witnesses, not subject to such impeachment, testified to the events which led to defendant's prosecution and there is no reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted had he been able to impeach the officer; since this conviction was not obtained in violation of Brady, it could be used at defendant's trial for making a false statement; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's recusal motion which was based on the trial judge's hiring of one of defendant's former attorneys as a law clerk as the law clerk only performs administrative functions for the trial judge (who is Chief Judge of the district) and does not work on his criminal cases; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the FBI; false statement charge was not motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness; while the issue of whether defendant's prosecution at a second trial was motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness would normally be analyzed under the de novo/clear error standard, because defendant did not raise the issue prior to trial, the issue is reviewed under the plain error standard;on the facts here, defendant failed to raise a presumption of vindictiveness, and the district court did not commit plain error by rejecting the claim. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.