United States v. Jamie Jones
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13172
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Jamie Duwayne Jones was indicted and tried for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm; a jury convicted him on both counts.
- Jones filed a pro se motion (July 15, 2013) seeking substitute counsel, alleging poor communication, failure to file suppression/dismissal motions, and disagreement over continuances. The magistrate judge denied the motion without an on-the-record hearing and ordered counsel to meet with Jones.
- Jones’s appointed counsel had requested multiple continuances (stating Jones agreed to waive speedy-trial rights) to negotiate a plea and provide cooperation; the district court granted the continuances as “in the interest of justice.”
- At trial government introduced still photos from a search video; during deliberations the jury requested the video and the court played ~11 minutes, which included irrelevant items (drugs, credit cards in other names) and the gun found in a vent with papers and an envelope addressed to Jones. Jones did not object to the video at trial.
- Evidence linking Jones to the gun included an earlier undercover purchase of a similarly taped-grip gun, the black-taped grip on the vent gun, presence in the southeast bedroom, an envelope addressed to Jones in the room, and partial DNA markers on the gun.
- Jones appealed arguing (1) magistrate failed to adequately inquire into his substitution motion, (2) Speedy Trial Act violations due to counsel’s continuances, and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in presenting/playback of the prejudicial video; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of inquiry into pro se motion to substitute counsel | Jones argued magistrate should have held an on-the-record hearing and granted new counsel for poor communication, lack of motions, and disagreement over continuances | Magistrate had Jones’s detailed written allegations and imposed remedial step (counsel meet Jones); no complete breakdown or conflict shown | No abuse of discretion in denying substitution without further inquiry; motion lacked showing of justifiable dissatisfaction |
| Speedy Trial Act (continuances) | Jones contended counsel’s continuances improperly waived his speedy-trial rights and §3161(h)(7)(A) findings were unsupported | Court granted continuances on ends-of-justice grounds; Jones never moved to dismiss under the Act before trial | Jones waived Speedy Trial Act challenge by failing to move for dismissal pretrial; no preserved violation shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for playing search video during deliberations | Jones argued the video’s depiction of drugs, dazed occupants, and unrelated credit cards was prejudicial and irrelevant to possession of the gun | Video provided contextual, admissible evidence of the circumstances of the search and room control; jury already informed of drug activity; trial court instructed jurors to disregard non-pertinent portions | Plain-error review: admission/playback did not plainly affect substantial rights given strong linking evidence and limiting instruction; no reversal |
| Failure to preserve objections / procedural default | Jones failed to object to magistrate ruling and to the video at trial | Government asserted waiver under Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a) and ordinary forfeiture rules | Court noted potential procedural default but, on merits and considering nonjurisdictional nature, reviewed and affirmed disposition; appellate relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Martel v. Clair, 132 S. Ct. 1276 (2012) (trial-court discretion in substitution motions and value of on-the-record inquiry)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (defendant may not prospectively waive Speedy Trial Act protections)
- United States v. Kelley, 774 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural waiver under Rule 59 and standards for substitution motions)
- United States v. Byers, 603 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2010) (admitting contextual evidence surrounding arrest in felon-in-possession prosecutions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework for forfeited objections)