United States v. Arthur Chappell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3763
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Police investigated suspected prostitution linked to Chappell after hotel staff identified illicit online ads and observed young women using a hotel room rented to him; surveillance on June 20, 2007 led to his arrest and seizure of cash and items used in prostitution.
- Initial indictment (May 19, 2009) charged Chappell with sex trafficking a minor (CB); he was convicted at the first trial, the conviction was reversed and remanded by this Court for a jury-instruction error.
- On remand a different prosecutor obtained an 11-count superseding indictment adding charges for trafficking a second minor (AW), child pornography counts, and transportation/enticing counts involving other victims; Chappell moved to dismiss counts 2–11 as vindictive prosecution.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the new counts under a presumption of vindictiveness; the district court declined to adopt that recommendation, finding no reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness and identifying legitimate non-vindictive reasons for the new charges.
- At the second trial a jury convicted Chappell on all counts; Chappell appealed, arguing improper denial of suppression reopening, lack of probable cause for the 2007 arrest, and vindictive prosecution in adding counts on remand.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: probable cause supported the June 20, 2007 arrest; the district court’s vindictiveness factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and no presumption of vindictiveness arose given different victims, new evidence timing, and objective trial-related reasons for additional charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for June 20, 2007 arrest | Chappell: new trial testimony undermines probable cause; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of illegal arrest | Government: totality of circumstances (hotel complaint, online ads, surveillance, vehicle with women) supported probable cause | Court: No abuse in refusing to reopen; de novo review finds probable cause supported the warrantless arrest |
| Motion to reopen suppression hearing | Chappell: trial testimony constituted new facts meriting reopening | Government: testimony merely repeated earlier evidence and did not change the record | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in denying reopening; new facts insufficient |
| Vindictive prosecution (dismiss counts 2–11) — presumption of vindictiveness | Chappell: adding new, more serious counts after appeal creates reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness; charges based on same underlying facts | Government: new prosecutor, newly discovered or newly timely available evidence (AW’s late disclosure), and strategic reasons after impeaching key witness CB | Held: No presumption of vindictiveness; objective circumstances (different victims, new evidence, trial developments) rebut any inference of vindictiveness |
| Sufficiency of government’s non-vindictive reasons | Chappell: government failed to rebut presumption and submitted no adequate record evidence | Government: trial record and timing justified additional charges; prosecutor discretion on remand | Held: District court did not err — legitimate, non-vindictive reasons supported prosecution’s charging decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (establishes presumption of vindictiveness in some post-conviction increases in sentence or charges)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (prohibits prosecutorial punishment for exercising statutory right to appeal by bringing more severe charges)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (limits presumption of vindictiveness; context must show reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness)
- United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955 (treats vindictiveness findings as factual and reviews district court for clear error)
- United States v. Partyka, 561 F.2d 118 (recognizes prosecutor discretion to charge multiple offenses on remand; evaluates vindictiveness claims)
- United States v. Punelli, 892 F.2d 1364 (examines objective circumstances and declines to apply presumption where reindictment followed evidence elicited at trial)