United States v. Freeman
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23413
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Freeman was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and moved to suppress evidence obtained from a residence search.
- Warrant affidavit credited a confidential informant who claimed Freeman hid crack under a camper; police found 87 grams of crack cocaine.
- Franks hearing was held to determine if the warrant relied on knowingly or recklessly false statements; the defense produced an affidavit from the informant Foster.
- Foster recanted statements attributed to him; Freeman sought suppression based on alleged falsehoods in the warrant.
- The district court denied suppression, crediting Officer Williams’s testimony over Foster’s recanted affidavit; Freeman appealed and also challenged the Franks ruling.
- After a conditional guilty plea, Freeman sought rehearing or coram nobis; the district court and the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franks challenge viability | Freeman contends Foster’s affidavit showed false statements essential to probable cause. | Freeman argues Williams knowingly or recklessly included false statements; Franks required suppression. | Franks hearing properly denied; credibility findings upheld. |
| Credibility and suppression decision | Foster’s recantation undermines the warrant’s reliability. | District court could rely on Williams’s testimony and other corroborating evidence. | District court’s credibility ruling and denial of suppression affirmed. |
| Rehearing after guilty plea | Newly discovered evidence (Osburn) could affect suppression ruling. | A guilty plea forecloses rehearing of suppression issues and Osburn evidence is not grounds to withdraw plea. | Rehearing motion properly denied; plea waiver foreclosed review of suppression. |
| Withdrawal of guilty plea as remedy | Pre-sentence withdrawal could offer relief based on new impeachment information. | Withdrawal would not be appropriate where guilt was not undermined by the alleged evidence. | Pre-sentence withdrawal would have been unlikely to succeed; not an avenue here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (necessity of substantial preliminary showing of falsity for Franks hearing)
- United States v. Butler, 594 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2010) (negligence not enough for Franks; require deliberate or reckless falsehood)
- United States v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (review of Franks credibility findings; de novo legal questions)
- United States v. Guel-Contreras, 468 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations are virtually unassailable on appeal)
- United States v. Pennington, 287 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2002) (strong initial showing required for Franks)
- United States v. Tucker, 419 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2005) (withdrawal considerations; not grounds to undermine guilt)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court 1970) (withdrawal due to post-plea evidentiary concerns)