United States v. Pope, No. 18-1544 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of brandishing a firearm during those crimes of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial given the attenuation between the prospective juror's remarks and defendant, and the deference due to the district court's assessment of the circumstances.
The court also held that an officer's nonresponsive answer, stating that defendant refused to speak with police at the scene of the arrest, violated the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, any violation of the rule in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Finally, the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges Criminal case - Criminal law. Defenant's assertion that a prospective juror's comments rendered the entire venire biased against him was too speculative to warrant a new trial, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial; defendant's claim that an officer's remark regarding his silence after his arrest violated his rights would be reviewed for plain error in the absence of any objection at trial; it is not clear that the officer's non-responsive answer, stating that defendant refused to speak with police at the scene of the arrest, violated the Due Process clause as the government made no use of the statement to prove any fact in issue and did not refer to the statement in closing; second, any violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) did not prejudice defendant as the evidence of guilt was strong, and he cannot demonstrative a reasonable probability that the officer's passing comment about his refusal to speak affected his substantial rights.
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.