United States v. Dukes
758 F.3d 932
8th Cir.2014Background
- FBI paid confidential informant (CI) made three controlled buys of crack cocaine arranged by "Twin" (Kevin Hartón) at 1002 South Park Street in Little Rock; buys occurred July 28, July 29, and August 2, 2010.
- Agents obtained audio recordings, surveillance photos of Hartón entering/exiting the residence, and field-tested substances that were positive for cocaine.
- FBI obtained and executed a search warrant for 1002 South Park Street; agents seized crack cocaine, paraphernalia, weapons, and items indicating Dukes lived there.
- Dukes was indicted on conspiracy and possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts and a felon-in-possession firearm count; he moved to suppress the search-warrant evidence, which the district court denied.
- At trial Hartón testified he obtained drugs from Dukes inside the residence on the three dates; Dukes denied selling drugs but admitted ties to the house; jury convicted Dukes on all counts.
- Dukes appealed denial of suppression, district court’s refusal to allow more time to review Jencks materials, and sufficiency of the evidence; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Dukes' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrant | Affidavit insufficient because Hartón was a second, unvetted informant and no reliability for Hartón was shown | Hartón was not a government informant; CI’s reliability plus surveillance corroboration supported probable cause | Affirmed — totality of circumstances and corroboration supported a fair probability contraband/evidence would be at the house |
| Time to review Jencks material / continuance | Requested an hour or two to review Jencks material; court denied additional continuance | Court offered lunch break (~1h15m) and to revisit; defense did not renew request | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; request effectively accommodated and claim waived |
| Sixth Amendment right to personally review Jencks (raised on appeal) | Denial of time infringed right to confront witnesses and denied effective assistance | No timely objection; issue forfeited and reviewed for plain error; no precedent establishing such Sixth Amendment right shown | Affirmed — no plain error and no showing of prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug convictions | Hartón was sole witness tying Dukes to supplying drugs; his credibility was impeached by a recanted affidavit | Photographs, CI recordings, surveillance, field tests corroborated Hartón’s testimony and tied Dukes to house and transactions | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, jury could reasonably find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2005) (magistrate’s probable-cause determination reviewed with deference; common-sense review of affidavit)
- United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (informant reliability may be established by independent corroboration)
- United States v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2013) (core question in informant-based probable cause is reliability; corroboration permits inferences of veracity)
- United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2012) (judges may draw reasonable inferences from totality of circumstances in probable-cause analysis)
- United States v. Stroud, 673 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2012) (Jencks Act requires production of witness statements relating to direct testimony)
- United States v. Chahia, 544 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts have broad discretion over continuances)
- United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Booker, 576 F.3d 506 (8th Cir. 2009) (claims not raised below are waived on appeal)