908 F.3d 346
8th Cir.2018Background
- A man robbed a Wells Fargo in Moorhead, MN with a sawed-off shotgun, fled, carjacked a driver to Fargo, ND, and abandoned the car; police linked security footage to Malcolm Evans.
- Evans was arrested at a Motel 6 where he rented two rooms; a warrant search of the rooms turned up cash, a sawed-off shotgun, and matching clothing.
- Federal charges included armed bank robbery, attempted carjacking, carjacking, and kidnapping (kidnapping dismissed); jury convicted on four counts and district court sentenced Evans to 360 months.
- Evans moved to suppress motel-room evidence (arguing affidavit lacked probable cause), raised complaints about counsel via letters (arguing they amounted to requests for new counsel), challenged an in-court identification, disputed the court’s exclusion/forfeiture of his testimony after outbursts, and contested a two-level obstruction enhancement at sentencing.
- The court denied suppression (found affidavit established fair probability of evidence in the rooms), declined to treat letters as motions for new counsel, applied plain-error review to the untimely identification objection, held forfeiture of Evans’s right to testify was permissible given repeated, willful disruptive statements, and affirmed the obstruction enhancement for trying to force a mistrial by escalating disruptive behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for motel-room search | Affidavit did not adequately connect Evans to robbery or to presence of evidence in motel rooms | Affidavit tied bus/video IDs, eyewitness IDs, shotgun ownership, travel to motel, and arrest there—supporting fair probability evidence would be at rooms | Warrant affidavit sufficient; suppression denied |
| Letters as requests for new counsel | Letters complaining about counsel were de facto requests for new counsel; court should have appointed new counsel | Letters primarily sought access to evidence; Evans never expressly asked for new counsel when questioned | No plain error; court reasonably treated letters as complaints about access and provided exhibit book |
| Admissibility of in-court identification | Identification was unreliable and unduly prejudicial given the brief, panicked encounter and video showing | Government relied on identification; defense failed to timely object preserving only plain-error review | Forfeiture applied; absent government misconduct, error not plain under current law |
| Right to testify & forfeiture | Court violated constitutional right by refusing to allow Evans to resume testimony | Evans repeatedly insisted on making irrelevant, inflammatory statements and refused to limit testimony to Q&A despite warnings | Court did not abuse discretion; Evans forfeited right to testify by contumacious conduct |
| Obstruction enhancement | Final outburst did not show intent to obstruct or cause a mistrial; enhancement improper | Cumulative disruptive conduct and prior mistrial motions showed intent to force mistrial; final table-jump was escalation | Enhancement upheld; district court’s finding (preponderance) not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ahumada, 858 F.3d 1138 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Wallace, 550 F.3d 729 (8th Cir.) (probable cause totality-of-circumstances standard)
- United States v. Salter, 358 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir.) (connecting affidavit facts to suspect identity)
- United States v. Tellez, 217 F.3d 547 (8th Cir.) (probable cause to search place where evidence likely found)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.) (timeliness requirement for objections; plain-error review)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (limits on due-process challenge to identifications absent police misconduct)
- United States v. Shumpert, 889 F.3d 488 (8th Cir.) (noting circuit split re: in-court ID due process without misconduct)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant's constitutional right to testify)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (limits on presenting evidence of marginal relevance)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (trial court discretion to manage disruptive defendants)
- United States v. Simms, 285 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir.) (burden and standard for obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Nichols, 416 F.3d 811 (8th Cir.) (clear-error review of factual findings for obstruction enhancement)