United States v. Bret Tschacher
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15976
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Tschacher was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- Police conducted a warrantless search of his pickup; suppression motion was denied pre-Gant, with reliance on then-existing Belton/pre-Gant law.
- Trial began with Tschacher requesting to proceed pro se; court conducted warnings and appointed stand-by counsel.
- Judgment of acquittal denied; weapons (handgun and rifle) were found in the truck where Tschacher had been a driver and owner jointly with his wife.
- Wife testified to her involvement with the guns; she and Tschacher shared ownership of the truck and knowledge of guns, with some evidence she concealed guns from him.
- On appeal, Tschacher challenged self-representation, the suppression ruling, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of counsel for self-representation | Tschacher contends the waiver was not knowing/voluntary due to inadequate inquiry. | Court failed to properly ensure competency to waive counsel and warned sufficiently. | Waiver deemed knowing and voluntary; court properly warned and ensured awareness. |
| Admissibility of evidence under Gant | Pre-Gant search violated Fourth Amendment; suppression warranted. | Searcher relied on binding pre-Gant precedent; suppression not required. | Evidence not suppressed; searches reasonable under Davis for pre-Gant precedent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowing possession | Government failed to prove knowing possession by Tschacher. | Evidence showed Tschacher had control/knowledge given ownership shared with wife and bag location. | Sufficient evidence of knowing possession; reasonable jury could find guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing, intelligent waiver)
- United States v. Turner, 644 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of pro se waiver; need informed waiver)
- United States v. Kiderlen, 569 F.3d 358 (8th Cir. 2009) (no rigid warning list; factors include awareness of right to counsel)
- United States v. Brown, 634 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2011) (knowledge/possession elements; circumstantial evidence permitted)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (reliance on binding appellate precedent can avoid exclusion)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest; rule clarified post-arrest)
- United States v. Hrasky, 453 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2006) (pre-Gant vehicle searches incident to arrest upheld)