United States v. Cowling
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16333
| 8th Cir. | 2011

Background

  • Cowling was convicted by jury of two conspiracies to possess stolen firearms, one count of felon in possession of firearms, and one count of possessing a stolen firearm; total sentence 63 months on Counts 4 and 8 and 60 months on Counts 1 and 6, concurrent.
  • A confidential informant (CI) provided information about burglaries and stolen firearms, which prosecutors used to obtain a search warrant for Cowling's residence.
  • Interview #1 with the CI described burglaries and stash locations but included false information, which the CI later denied; the ISF thefts involved fuel tanks and diesel fuel.
  • Interview #2 corroborated some details of Interview #1; police located stolen ISF items on Cowling’s property and linked a vehicle to the suspect Snook.
  • The warrant application falsely stated the informant had not given false information, and a magistrate approved the warrant; firearms were seized during the March 18, 2009, search.
  • Cowling moved to suppress the seized firearms; the district court denied, and the case proceeded to trial where multiple witnesses, including the CI and Snook, testified against him.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Franks challenge to warrant Cowling argues the affidavit contained false statements that were material to probable cause. State contends omissions/falsehoods were not material to probable cause. Franks not satisfied; probable cause existed even with CI falsehoods.
Nexus between evidence and place searched CI information alone linked firearms to Cowling’s residence. No explicit nexus; residence linkage insufficient. Probable cause supported search nexus; firearms plausibly found at home.
Cross-examination limit Limitations on cross-exam of Deputy Moore violated Confrontation Clause and Rule 613. Limitations were within district court discretion. No abuse; cross-examination reasonably constrained and preserved rights.
Admission of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) Bell findings supported conspiracy; statements properly admitted. Some statements were borderline; risk of error Court did not abuse discretion; sufficient foundation for conspiracies found.
Evidence under Rule 404(b) (prior bad acts) admissibility Prior ISF burglary evidence relevant to intent/plan and motive. Evidence is acts to prove propensity. Admissible with cautionary instruction; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Sufficiency of evidence—Counts 1, 4, 6 Testimony linked Cowling to conspiracies and possession; sufficient for conviction. Evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy/possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence sufficient to sustain Counts 1, 4, and 6.

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (Franks-related considerations for probable cause)
  • United States v. Vanover, 630 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 2011) (De novo review of probable cause in suppression)
  • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (Totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
  • United States v. Morales, 923 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1991) (Probable-cause framework in informant reliability)
  • United States v. Nieman, 520 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2008) (Informant reliability considerations)
  • United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (Informant reliability factors (face-to-face interview, detail, corroboration))
  • United States v. Robertson, 39 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1994) (Weight of first-hand observations in reliability)
  • United States v. Stropes, 387 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2004) (Corroboration as reliability factor)
  • United States v. Bell, 573 F.2d 1040 (8th Cir. 1978) (Foundational Bell/Bell-type determinations for 801(d)(2)(E))
  • United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (Procedural steps for Rule 801(d)(2)(E) foundations)
  • United States v. Bourjaily, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (Confrontation/foundation for hearsay exceptions)
  • United States v. Ragland, 555 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination limits)
  • Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (Confrontation Clause limits on cross-examination)
  • United States v. Jackson, 898 F.2d 79 (8th Cir. 1990) (Reliability via first-hand observation)
  • United States v. Hessman, 493 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2007) (Limiting testimony to reduce prejudice)
  • United States v. Howard, 235 F.3d 366 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) probative value vs. prejudice)
  • Arnott v. United States, 464 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1983) (Evidentiary standard for Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
Read the full case