United States v. Carlous Horton
756 F.3d 569
8th Cir.2014Background
- Horton and Holmes were leaders in a Springfield–Branson cocaine distribution ring; DEA investigation used a confidential informant, controlled buys, and wiretaps; searches recovered large quantities of cocaine and firearms.
- A grand jury returned a multi-defendant, 70-count indictment; Horton was named in 59 counts and Holmes in 3; both proceeded to trial and were convicted on multiple counts.
- Both defendants received mandatory life sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) due to prior convictions; they appealed raising procedural, evidentiary, and constitutional claims.
- Appellants’ primary joint appellate claims: improper pre-arrest surveillance/wiretap procedure, Brady/exculpatory evidence and outrageous government conduct, failure to hold a Remmer inquiry over a potential juror exposure, and a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section challenge to the jury pool.
- Holmes separately challenged (1) admission of prior convictions under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), (2) sentencing based on a PSR that initially omitted the mandatory-life advisory, and (3) the district court’s handling of his Blakely/Alleyne objections to the PSR.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment suppression / wiretap procedure | Government engaged in prolonged pre-arrest surveillance and failed to comply with wiretap procedures; evidence should be suppressed | Arguments waived for failure to raise pretrial; DEA had no duty to arrest earlier (Lovasco) and no good-cause to excuse waiver | Waived; no relief — suppression claims not reviewed on appeal |
| Brady / failure to disclose palm/fingerprint results and access to computer | Government withheld potentially exculpatory fingerprint/palm-print analyses and blocked access to Horton's computer | Government complied with court order to permit prints and gave Horton access to his computer; failure to produce analyses is speculative | Plain-error review fails: no showing of Brady materiality; speculation insufficient, claim denied |
| Outrageous government conduct (informant misconduct, witness intimidation, alleged theft) | DEA’s use of a drug-abusing informant, alleged intimidation of a witness, and alleged theft of $9,000 warrant dismissal of indictment | Conduct did not rise to conscience-shocking or government-created-crime level; informant’s independent misconduct not attributable to Government | Denied: allegations either unsupported or insufficiently outrageous to justify dismissal |
| Remmer juror-exposure hearing | District court should have held a full Remmer hearing after a juror might have overheard defense counsel speaking to defendant’s family | Court questioned the juror, juror denied exposure, defense declined further questioning; judge acted within discretion | Plain-error review fails: district court’s handling reasonable; no need for expanded Remmer hearing |
| Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section (no African-American jurors observed) | Jury wheel excluded African-Americans from venire, violating fair-cross-section requirement | Appellants provided no venire-level statistics or proof of systematic exclusion; mere observation/census data insufficient | Denied: no prima facie showing of systematic underrepresentation |
| Rule 404(b) admission of Holmes’s prior convictions | Holmes: prior convictions were unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded | Prior convictions relevant to intent/knowledge and felon-in-possession count; not too remote; limiting instruction reduced prejudice | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion admitting 404(b) evidence |
| Sentencing / PSR omission of mandatory-life range and Blakely objections | Holmes: PSR’s initial sentencing range omitted mandatory-life exposure; court erred by not holding separate Blakely-style hearing on PSR objections | Holmes knew of § 851 enhancement pretrial; PSR was corrected at sentencing; sentence was mandatory so misstatement did not prejudice him; objections were too vague to trigger hearing | Denied: no plain error — no reasonable probability of lighter sentence and objections were not specific enough to require further findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovasco v. United States, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (government need not arrest as soon as it has probable cause; delay may be lawful)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose material, exculpatory evidence)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (procedures for investigating juror exposure allegations)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error standard in jury-remediation context)
- United States v. Aleman, 548 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2008) (Brady plain-error analysis; speculation insufficient)
- United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2013) (elements for fair-cross-section claim)
- United States v. Robinson, 639 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 2011) (404(b) prior-drug convictions admissible to show intent/knowledge)
- United States v. King, 351 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2003) (limits of outrageous-government-conduct dismissal)