United States v. Mueller
661 F.3d 338
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Karen Coleman plotted to kill her husband with Larry Nolan; Kornhardt, Mueller, and others carried out the murder-for-hire scheme starting in 1992.
- Kornhardt recruited Mueller; Mueller disposed of a silencer, gun, and ammo after a phone directive from Kornhardt, and was paid; Danny Coleman was killed in 1992.
- Insurance proceeds from Danny Coleman’s policies funded the scheme; payments to Kornhardt and others occurred through the mid-1990s, including a $15,000 payment in October 1994.
- A 1999 inmate tip led to renewed investigation; Kornhardt’s fingerprint matched a print on a matches box found at the scene; Karen admitted payments and receipts related to the murder-for-hire scheme.
- Second superseding indictment charged murder-for-hire, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice; Karen pled guilty; Mueller and Kornhardt went to trial.
- The jury convicted Mueller and Kornhardt of murder-for-hire and conspiracy; Kornhardt also convicted of obstruction of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations and ex post facto | Mueller and Kornhardt claim §1958(a) as amended should not apply to pre-1994 conduct. | They argue retroactive penalty increase violates ex post facto. | No ex post facto violation; crimes completed after amendment negate limitations defense. |
| Severance | Joint trial prejudiced Mueller and Kornhardt. | Severance unnecessary due to overlapping evidence and non-irreconcilable defenses. | No abuse of discretion; joinder proper; no reversible prejudice. |
| Failure to state an offense | Indictment properly alleged interstate use of mail/facilities post-amendment. | Pre-2004 language required multi-state use of facilities; indictment faulted. | Correct interpretation of pre-amendment law; still viable under Howard; no dismissal required. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Two challenged remarks were improper. | Comments were brief, non-prejudicial, and trial court curative instructions applied. | No plain error affecting substantial rights. |
| Confrontation/Bruton issue (Kornhardt) | Mueller's statements and grand jury redactions implicate Kornhardt. | Redactions and limiting instructions mitigate Bruton concerns. | Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other strong evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hance, 501 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of statute-of-limitations denial)
- United States v. Dolan, 120 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 1997) (limitations period runs from last overt act)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmless-error standard for improper jury instructions)
- United States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005) (redaction concerns under Bruton; limitations on admissibility)
- United States v. Logan, 210 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2000) (Bruton analysis for redacted confessions)
- United States v. Chapman, 345 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003) (harmless-error approach to confrontation-clause violations)
- Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 1999) (factors for evaluating harmless-error in confrontation cases)