United States v. Kevin Lumpkin
677 F. App'x 992
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Lumpkin, a North Randall police officer, sold multiple firearms (including a Hi-Point rifle and a Ruger handgun) to Calvin Kelly and Michelle Devine in 2011–2012. Both buyers were convicted felons at the time of the challenged sales.
- Lumpkin had an ongoing relationship with Kelly and Devine: he bought marijuana from Kelly, was aware Kelly’s legal troubles (probation), installed a home security system after their burglary, and accepted a false tax return Devine prepared for him.
- The sale facts included above‑market prices for the guns and instructions from Lumpkin to Devine to call him—not police—if she used a gun. Lumpkin later lied about the Ruger’s disposition when questioned in 2014.
- FBI agents recorded an interview with Lumpkin; during trial an agent testified (without objection) that Lumpkin appeared evasive and that the agent did not believe Lumpkin’s statements on the tape.
- Lumpkin was convicted by a jury of two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) (selling firearms to convicted felons). He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge and that the agent’s testimony unfairly prejudiced his trial.
Issues
| Issue | Lumpkin's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Lumpkin knew or had reasonable cause to believe buyers were felons | No direct evidence; jury could not reasonably infer knowledge from circumstances | Circumstantial evidence (awareness of buyers’ criminality, overcharging, secrecy, instruction to avoid police, lying later) supports knowledge | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence was sufficient when viewed in prosecution’s favor |
| Admission of FBI agent’s testimony that he did not believe Lumpkin's interview statements | Testimony improperly commented on truthfulness and deprived Lumpkin of a fair trial; possibly Rule 701/403 or due process violation | Agent was a fact witness who observed the interview; testimony was brief, based on perception, and not plainly erroneous | Affirmed — no plain or obvious error; admission did not affect substantial rights |
| Weight/credibility of cooperating witnesses (Devine, Kelly) | Verdict against manifest weight; witnesses had incentives to lie | Credibility determinations are for jury; sufficiency review does not reweigh evidence | Forfeited manifest‑weight challenge; credibility not reweighed on appeal |
| Plain‑error standard applicability | N/A (defense did not object at trial) | Plain‑error review applies; error must be clear and affect substantial rights | Plain‑error standard applied; no clear or obvious error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkman v. United States, 797 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Gjergji v. United States, [citation="567 F. App'x 728"] (11th Cir.) (circumstantial evidence can prove knowledge element)
- Paige v. United States, 470 F.3d 603 (6th Cir.) (appellate court should not weigh witness credibility on sufficiency review)
- Lutz v. United States, 154 F.3d 581 (6th Cir.) (failure to renew a motion for new trial forfeits manifest‑weight challenge)
- Oliver v. United States, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.) (plain‑error review framework when trial objection is waived)
- Barajas‑Nunez v. United States, 91 F.3d 826 (6th Cir.) (definition of plain error)