United States v. Patrick Harding
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13686
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In Aug. 2014 Harding was arrested after a witness reported he had a Glock .40 in his waistband; police later found a loaded Glock and related items in a Menards bag at Donald Macpherson’s home. The gun had been stolen from a vehicle in May 2014.
- A federal grand jury charged Harding with being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession of a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)). A jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment.
- Harding appealed, raising three principal claims: (1) Batson challenge to government peremptory strikes of two Native-American venirepersons; (2) district court’s refusal to appoint counsel or advise two prosecution witnesses of their Fifth Amendment privilege; and (3) denial of mistrial/continuance based on surprise trial testimony (including testimony about a witness’s paranoid schizophrenia).
- During voir dire the prosecutor struck Lloyd Lacroix (who had worked with Harding) and Jamie Cottier (a nurse who had appeared on a prior venire); the court skipped the prima facie Batson step, heard race-neutral reasons, and denied the Batson challenge at step three.
- The court denied motions for mistrial/continuance because prosecutors did not know of the allegedly undisclosed testimony (so no Brady violation) and any further investigation into Macpherson’s mental-health history was speculative and unlikely to produce material prejudice; corroborating testimony also supported the government’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Harding's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to strikes of two Native-American venirepersons | Strikes were racially motivated and violated equal protection | Prosecutor offered race-neutral reasons (Lacroix knew defendant; Cottier was a nurse and had appeared on prior venire); court found no purposeful discrimination | Affirmed: no clear error in district court’s credibility finding; race-neutral reasons permissible |
| Failure to appoint counsel/advise prosecution witnesses of Fifth Amendment privilege | District court erred by not appointing counsel or advising witnesses of privilege, prejudicing Harding | Privilege belongs to the witness, and Harding lacks standing to challenge the court’s discretionary treatment of witnesses | Affirmed: defendant lacks standing to contest witnesses’ privilege decisions |
| Denial of mistrial for late testimony from security guard Brown (leaning into glove compartment) | Surprise testimony violated Brady and warranted mistrial | Government did not know of the new testimony; testimony was inculpatory and disclosed at trial, so no Brady violation | Affirmed: no Brady violation and no basis for mistrial |
| Denial of mistrial/continuance after Macpherson’s surprise testimony and disclosure of paranoid schizophrenia | Trial should have been continued to obtain medical records and an expert to challenge Macpherson’s credibility | Government was unaware of diagnosis; defense could cross-examine and impeach; testimony corroborated by other witness; further investigation speculative | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion and defendant not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishes three-step test for peremptory strikes based on race)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (clarifies Batson three-step framework and burden shifts)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (skipping prima facie step renders that step moot when prosecution offers race-neutral reasons)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (prosecution need only give race-neutral explanation; defendant must show pretext)
- United States v. Anwar, 428 F.3d 1102 (Brady inapplicable where government lacked prior knowledge of evidence and testimony is inculpatory)
- United States v. Redd, 318 F.3d 778 (standard for reviewing denial of continuance—abuse of discretion and prejudice required)
- United States v. Pherigo, 327 F.3d 690 (review of Batson rulings; deference to trial court credibility assessments)
- United States v. Velazquez-Rivera, 366 F.3d 661 (occupation can be race-neutral basis for peremptory strike)
- United States v. Iron Moccasin, 878 F.2d 226 (knowing relationship between juror and defendant is permissible race-neutral strike)
- Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (privilege against self-incrimination belongs to witness, not defendant)