United States v. Duane Big Eagle
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 603
8th Cir.2013Background
- Big Eagle, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe chairman, faced conspiracy and bribery charges tied to kickbacks from contractors (Kutz, McClatchey, Bauman, Raue) for tribal school repairs (2002–2008).
- Raue, the school administrator, solicited/inflated invoices and shared bribes with Big Eagle and other council members.
- Kutz paid kickbacks via cash or in-kind arrangements; McClatchey paid kickbacks after loans and pressure from the tribal chairman.
- Bauman loaned funds to the tribe and council members; at a key October 2008 meeting, Big Eagle and others sought an additional $5,000 to conceal bribes; Suaze cooperated with authorities.
- Indictment charged four counts (two conspiracy to commit bribery; two bribery involving an agent); Big Eagle moved to exclude uncharged-crimes evidence and McClatchey testimony; trial occurred with Raue’s and McClatchey’s testimony nourishing the government’s case.
- Jury convicted Big Eagle on counts I, III, and IV; district court imposed concurrent 36-month sentences; appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly limited review of in limine rulings | Big Eagle preserved via pretrial objections. | Rulings were preliminary; not final to preserve on appeal. | Plain-error review applicable; preservation was lacking. |
| Extrinsic vs intrinsic evidence under Rule 404(b) | Uncharged-bribery evidence was intrinsic to the conspiracy. | Evidence should be excluded unless intrinsic under Johnson precedent. | Evidence admitted as intrinsic; not plain error. |
| Admission of McClatchey’s testimony about Big Eagle’s statements | Pretrial ruling limited testimony about threat to daughter; not properly admitted. | No proper objection; limits waived; cross-examination clarified. | Waiver; substantial evidence supports guilt; no plain error. |
| Effect of lack of objection on limiting instruction serving prejudice | A limiting instruction could have mitigated prejudice. | Waived objection; cautionary instruction generally suffices. | No reversible error given substantial evidence of guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shores, 700 F.3d 366 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for evidentiary rulings; plain-error review when not preserved)
- United States v. Troyer, 677 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain-error framework for review of evidentiary errors)
- United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2006) (intrinsic evidence doctrine for Rule 404(b) in kickback cases)
- United States v. Huerta-Orosco, 340 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2003) (limiting instruction/objection considerations on testimony)
- United States v. Diaz-Pellegaud, 666 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2012) (prejudice and cautionary instruction sufficiency)