United States v. David Earl Butler
39 F.4th 1349
| 11th Cir. | 2022Background
- David Butler, a convicted felon, was tried and convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) for possession of a firearm.
- Butler moved to suppress evidence on four grounds: allegedly suggestive photo lineup, lack of probable cause for arrest warrants, lack of probable cause for a search warrant, and an involuntary/conflicted confession.
- Three witnesses independently identified Butler from a photo lineup; the district court found the lineup issue waived for lack of specific factual challenge and alternatively not unduly suggestive.
- Officers smelled marijuana at Butler’s residence and Butler admitted recent marijuana use; a search warrant for marijuana was issued and executed.
- Butler gave a videotaped Miranda waiver and confession at the station; he argued possible intoxication from marijuana undermined his waiver but presented no specific factual support.
- Butler sought to introduce testimony and affidavits from Ieshia Matchett (who invoked the Fifth and recanted an earlier affidavit claiming ownership of the gun); the district court excluded that evidence as hearsay or privileged. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any evidentiary exclusion harmless given strong evidence including Butler’s confession and detailed statements.
Issues
| Issue | Butler's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo-lineup suggestiveness | Lineup was unduly suggestive; identifications should be suppressed | Butler waived specific challenge; alternatively lineup was not suggestive | Court affirmed: waiver on appeal; alternatively no clear error — lineup not unduly suggestive |
| Probable cause for arrest warrants | No probable cause to arrest Butler | Three independent photo identifications provided probable cause | Court held probable cause existed based on identifications |
| Probable cause for search warrant | Warrant lacked probable cause (marijuana) | Smell of marijuana and Butler’s admission provided probable cause for marijuana search | Court held probable cause supported the search warrant |
| Miranda waiver/confession | Waiver invalid due to recent marijuana use/possible intoxication | Waiver was recorded; Butler gave no specific facts showing incapacity; precedent permits waiver despite drug use | Court held waiver knowing and intelligent; confession admissible |
| Exclusion of Matchett evidence/affidavits | Recanted affidavit and related evidence should be admitted as statement against interest or under residual hearsay; compel Matchett to testify about firearm purchases | Matchett invoked Fifth; recanted affidavit lacked corroboration/trustworthiness; evidence marginal and prejudicial; exclusion within discretion | Court affirmed exclusion: Rule 804(b)(3) and residual hearsay standards not met; Fifth Amendment protection permitted; exclusion not an abuse and harmless error |
| Sufficiency / cumulative error | Evidence insufficient and cumulative errors deprived fair trial | Confession, detailed statements, and corroborating facts made evidence sufficient; no reversible errors | Court held evidence sufficient and no cumulative error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (unchallenged grounds on appeal deemed abandoned)
- United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for suggestive identification: clear error)
- Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1992) (drug/alcohol use does not automatically invalidate a Miranda waiver)
- United States v. Gaddy, 894 F.2d 1307 (11th Cir. 1990) (upholding Miranda waiver despite defendant’s substance use and emotional issues)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (court discretion to refuse witness from testifying when witness will invoke Fifth broadly)
- United States v. Lacouture, 495 F.2d 1237 (5th Cir. 1974) (addressing refusal to allow a witness to take the stand when privilege will be claimed)
- United States v. Thomas, 62 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1995) (statement-against-interest requires corroborating circumstances indicating trustworthiness)
- United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976 (11th Cir. 1989) (residual hearsay rule requires attributes of trustworthiness beyond ordinary hearsay)
- United States v. Machado, 886 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2018) (Rule 403 probative vs. prejudicial balancing)
- United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2019) (constitutional right to present a defense limited by evidentiary rules; requires compelling reason to override rules)