United States v. Eric Michelle Hunter
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20662
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- After controlled buys, wiretap surveillance, and a warrant search of an apartment leased by Eric Michelle Hunter and Rikki Gilow, Hunter was indicted with multiple federal offenses.
- Gilow and Harvey pled guilty; after a three-day trial, Hunter was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and related charges, including firearm offenses and witness tampering.
- The district court sentenced Hunter to consecutive life terms for the § 924(c) counts and concurrent life terms plus 240-month terms for other offenses.
- Hunter appealed challenging the suppression ruling on the dog sniff and various trial errors, as well as the weight of the mandatory life sentences.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, and denied related pro se motions and new-counsel requests.
- A concurring opinion criticized the harshness of the § 924(c) mandatory life sentence and called for reform.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of warrant evidence due to dog sniff | Hunter: Jardines dog sniff violated Fourth Amendment. | Hunter: suppression baseline invalid if evidence tainted. | Suppression denied; reliance on binding precedent; Davis controls. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during trial and closing | Prosecutor improperly referred to witnesses and children and demeaned defense. | No substantial prejudice; court curative instructions and limited references. | No reversible error; no plain error in closing argument or testimony. |
| Closing argument about the defense being only about evidence integrity | Prosecutor disparaged defense theories in closing. | Statement contextually fair comment on defense credibility. | Not plain error; permitted as a comment on defense strength. |
| Alleyne/Apprendi implications for sentencing | Alleyne forecloses using facts to increase mandatory minimums; career-offender status and life sentence invalid without jury findings. | Almendarez-Torres remains controlling; prior convictions may be used to enhance without jury fact-finding. | foreclosed by Alvarez and Abrahamson; Almendarez-Torres remains controlling in circuit. |
| Pro se filings and post-trial representation | Hunter seeks new counsel and pro se briefs on appeal. | Policy omits accepting pro se filings when represented; counsel refused issues raised. | Motions denied; direct-appeal issues waived; ineffective-assistance claims may be raised later. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 760 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2014) (evidence obtained in reliance on binding precedent not excluded)
- United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010) (dog sniff from hallway not a search; binding precedent)
- United States v. McGrane, 746 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1984) (precedent cited on searches of apartment doors)
- United States v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1977) (cited for search doctrine history)
- United States v. Hernandez, 779 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1985) (considerations of prejudice in trial misconduct)
- United States v. Green, 560 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review standard)
- United States v. Alvarez, 320 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi/Almendarez-Torres interplay)
- United States v. Abrahamson, 731 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2013) (Alleyne does not overrule prior-conviction enhancements)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (dog sniff at home vicinity as a search issue)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions exception to jury-trial for penalties)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalties must be jury-found)