United States v. McNeal (Ann Marie)
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12269
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In late 2014 Ann Marie McNeal bought firearms (a .22 revolver and later a .22 rifle) while her son Phinehas, a convicted felon on parole, accompanied her; Phinehas also purchased ammunition and was arrested for shoplifting at a sporting-goods store.
- Police arrested both at the store; Detective Roy Ditzler (ATF task force) interviewed McNeal at the station after learning Phinehas was a felon and that McNeal had bought a gun similar to one previously shown to her son.
- McNeal received Miranda warnings; interview lasted from about 11:00 p.m. to 2:52 a.m. with interruptions; she initially denied additional guns but after officers warned about the consequences of lying she disclosed a pawnshop rifle and a shotgun in her trailer and admitted the rifle was for Phinehas.
- Officers prepared a search-warrant affidavit primarily based on McNeal’s interview statements and obtained a warrant about 2.5 hours later; the search uncovered the three firearms near items belonging to Phinehas.
- McNeal was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) for disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon; she moved to suppress the seized evidence claiming statements were coerced and the affidavit contained false descriptions; the district court denied suppression and she was convicted and sentenced to probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 922(d)(1) under Commerce Clause | — | McNeal argued the statute exceeded Congress’s Commerce power | Court: forfeited issue; plain-error review failed—no controlling precedent supports McNeal |
| Whether a momentary-possession jury instruction was required | — | McNeal requested instruction that Phinehas’s possession may have been momentary | Court: refused; Tenth Circuit has never adopted such defense and facts here did not justify it |
| Whether statements used in affidavit were coerced (Fifth Amendment) | — | McNeal argued officers coerced her by threatening felony prosecution if she didn’t answer/truthfully answer | Court: Officer warnings accurately described legal consequences for lying; statements were not coercive and were voluntary |
| Whether affidavit contained falsified statements requiring Franks excision | — | McNeal alleged some statements were falsely reported in affidavit | Court: Because statements were voluntary and remaining affidavit sufficed for probable cause, court need not resolve falsity claims; warrant valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes procedure for challenging warrant affidavits for intentional or reckless falsehood)
- United States v. Lopez, 849 F.3d 921 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir.) (appellate deference to district court factfinding even when video evidence exists)
- United States v. Tafoya, 459 F.2d 424 (10th Cir.) (threats to legitimate subjects of inquiry not per se coercive)
- United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819 (10th Cir.) (admissions voluntary though officers noted possible consequences)
- United States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777 (4th Cir.) (informing suspect of statutory penalty for false statements does not render confession involuntary)
- United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 777 (10th Cir.) (momentary-possession defense framework)