979 F.3d 586
8th Cir.2020Background
- Charles Chastain, a retired Arkansas State Police trooper serving as an auxiliary sheriff’s deputy, handled confidential informants Michael Caldwell and Cris Embree for the Tri-County Drug Task Force.
- Chastain solicited Caldwell to steal a roughly $25,000 ATV, paid $800–$1,000, and promised protection and official assistance in return.
- After Caldwell and Embree were stopped with drugs, Chastain called the arresting officer and the pair were released based on the officer’s belief they were working a case with Chastain.
- Chastain later sought stolen firearms; Caldwell, worried, contacted the FBI, which provided out-of-state rifles that Caldwell gave to Chastain; Chastain did not pay and later admitted he intended to obtain stolen guns and had instructed the informants to claim the items were for his official use.
- Chastain was convicted of extortion and attempted extortion under color of official right (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and receipt of firearms with intent to commit a felony (18 U.S.C. § 924(b)); sentenced to 30 months (downward variance) and appealed raising sufficiency and judicial-recusal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of extortion/attempted extortion under color of official right | Chastain contends the evidence does not establish extortion under color of official right | Government: payments, promises of protection, and Chastain’s official acts (recommendations/intervention) show he obtained payments in return for official acts | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; explicit quid pro quo not required under Evans; promise + official acts supported conviction |
| § 924(b) interstate-commerce element | Chastain argues § 924(b) requires direct interstate receipt and evidence showed only intrastate receipt | Government: jury could find interstate nexus because firearms were manufactured out-of-state and possessed in Arkansas; jury instruction matched that theory | Affirmed — plain-error review fails because law not "clear"; and under charged instruction evidence sufficed |
| § 924(b) requirement that firearms be stolen (underlying felony) | Chastain argues guns were not stolen so conviction fails | Government: § 924(b) is inchoate/attempt-style; intent to receive stolen guns suffices; factual impossibility is not a defense | Affirmed — intent to obtain stolen guns and receipt sufficed; factual impossibility irrelevant to attempt offense |
| Judicial recusal (sua sponte) | Chastain says judge should have recused after receiving case-related texts from his brother | Government: texts disclosed; judge asked parties if they wished to move and none did; texts did not show judicial bias | Affirmed — no evidence of deep-seated favoritism/antagonism; judge disclosed and solicited objections; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1992) (defines extortion under color of official right; quid pro quo guidance)
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (U.S. 2016) ("official act" can include advice/assistance to other officials)
- United States v. Burks, 135 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 1998) (discusses attempt elements and how § 924(b) operates as an inchoate offense)
- United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2016) (attempt convictions may be upheld even if substantive offense is not consummated)
- United States v. Rehak, 589 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2009) (factual impossibility is not a defense to inchoate offenses)
- United States v. Joiner, 418 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2005) (same principle on factual impossibility)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review requires error be "clear under current law")
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial-bias standard—recusal only for deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)
- United States v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2003) (reluctance to require sua sponte recusal; application of Liteky)
- United States v. Barthman, 919 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 2019) (defendant bears burden of establishing plain-error review when failing to object to jury instruction)
- United States v. Kalb, 750 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2014) (explicit quid pro quo not required for Hobbs Act extortion outside campaign-contribution context)