United States v. Heard, No. 18-3411 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm, possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possessing a stolen firearm. The court held that there was no error in admitting eyewitness identification evidence, because the show-up identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the identification was reliable; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on eyewitness identification where the government's case did not rest solely on questionable eyewitness identification; there was no Sixth Amendment violation of defendant's right to counsel where the district court allowed defendant to give his own closing argument, defendant was still represented by counsel and received advice, there was no duty to conduct a Faretta hearing, and defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. No error in admitting eyewitness identification testimony as the show-up identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the identification was reliable; no error in refusing to give Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 4.08 on eyewitness testimony as the government's case did not rest solely on questionable eyewitness identification; defendant's right to counsel was not violated when the district court permitted him to give his own closing argument; because defendant was still represented by counsel and received counsel's advice, he did not fully waive his right to counsel, and the district court had no duty to conduct a Faretta hearing; in any event, the record demonstrated defendant knew and understood the disadvantages of self-representation and knowingly and willingly chose to proceed with his own closing argument; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
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.