United States v. Lamarvin Darden
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16354
8th Cir.2012Background
- Darden convicted after jury trial of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm; district court sentenced 200 months.
- Grand jury proceedings included Houstons’ testimony and detective Steiger’s summary testimony; on the day, Houstons disputed police statements and both changed positions.
- Prosecutor and Steiger met with the Houstons outside the grand jury; Houstons’ statements were discussed and the grand jury indicted Darden for unlawful firearm possession.
- At trial, evidence included a 9mm handgun and bulletproof vest found at the Houstons’ home; Darden’s post-arrest statement referenced protection and concealment.
- Defense challenged the Xbox printout and .45 caliber gun testimony as prejudicial; the government introduced them with objections and curative actions.
- The jury convicted on three counts and acquitted on two; appellate review addressed grand jury conduct, evidence admissibility, and closing argument propriety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grand jury misconduct and indictment dismissal | Darden argues government misconduct by withholding Houstons’ testimony | Government had no obligation to present exculpatory testimony | Affirmative denial of dismissal; no flagrant misconduct shown |
| Admission of xbox/.45 evidence | Evidence irrelevant and prejudicial since .45 not charged | Cross-examination made it relevant to corroborate Cl. | Not plain error; evidence relevant after cross-exam; no undue prejudice |
| Closing argument improper statements | Prosecutor’s rebuttal biased jury and shifted burden | Arguments invited by defense and rebuttal proper | No reversible error; cumulative evidence supports verdict; plain error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wadlington, 233 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal of indictment in prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Miller, 621 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2010) (improper closing argument involving police credibility and acquittal)
- United States v. Herbst, 668 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain error review for prosecutorial misconduct; prejudice standard)
- United States v. Davis, 534 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain error review for closing argument; standard of review)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (invoked invited response doctrine in closing arguments)