United States v. Randall Robinson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 26
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Randall Robinson, a former Little Rock police officer, was tried on multiple drug, firearms, and false-statement counts after allegations he provided protection for marijuana shipments; jury convicted him of distributing 1/2 pound of marijuana in July 2013, deadlocked on other counts, leading to a mistrial and later reindictment.
- After the first trial, the LRPD investigated Detective Charles Weaver (a government witness) for alleged property-room theft and forged receipts; Weaver was fired in Sept. 2013. The investigation began after Robinson’s first trial.
- Robinson moved for a new trial under Brady, arguing the government should have disclosed Weaver’s misconduct (impeachment evidence) because Weaver’s knowledge was imputable to the prosecution; the district court denied the motion.
- At the second trial Robinson was convicted of making material false statements to FBI agents and acquitted on other counts; the marijuana-distribution conviction from the first trial was admitted as prior bad act/evidence.
- Robinson also sought recusal of Chief Judge Miller because Miller hired one of Robinson’s former attorneys as a law clerk; the judge denied recusal.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) no Brady-based new trial because undisclosed Weaver misconduct was not material given other evidence (Detective Kiser’s eyewitness testimony); (2) admission of the prior conviction and the false-statement conviction were upheld; (3) no recusal error; (4) prosecutorial vindictiveness claim rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady failure to disclose Weaver misconduct | Weaver’s misconduct was material impeachment evidence; prosecutor should be charged with knowledge of witness misconduct | Weaver’s misconduct was known only to Weaver, unrelated to the case, and could not reasonably have been discovered or attributed to prosecutor; other evidence supported conviction | No Brady violation; undisclosed evidence not material because Kiser’s eyewitness testimony would still support verdict |
| Admissibility of prior marijuana conviction at retrial | Admission unfairly prejudiced Robinson because it was from the same indictment series | Prior conviction relevant to intent/knowledge and defendant’s general-denial defense; not the same transaction as conspiracy charges | Admission proper under Rule 404(b); probative for knowledge/intent and not unduly prejudicial |
| Recusal for hiring of former defense counsel as law clerk | Appearance of impropriety; clerk formerly appeared for Robinson | Clerk performed only administrative/Social Security work for magistrate judges and was screened from case involvement | No recusal abuse; impartiality not reasonably questioned |
| Sufficiency of evidence & materiality for §1001 false-statement conviction | Statements not shown to be material because agent didn’t say so | False denials were capable of influencing FBI investigation; materiality need not show actual reliance | Evidence sufficient; false statements were capable of influencing the investigation and thus material |
| Prosecutorial vindictiveness for adding false-statement count | Charge added in later superseding indictments after mistrial; reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness | False-statement charge followed a mistrial and arose from separate, independent conduct; no presumption of vindictiveness | No plain-error relief; no reasonable presumption of vindictiveness where indictment followed a mistrial and charge was independent |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (imputed knowledge to prosecutor; materiality standard)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (reasonable-probability materiality standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Brady and impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Rodgers, 18 F.3d 1425 (no presumption of vindictiveness after mistrial)
- United States v. Chappell, 779 F.3d 872 (standards for reviewing vindictiveness and discovery decisions)
- United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941 (discussing limits on imputing officers’ knowledge to prosecutors)
- United States v. Kern, 12 F.3d 122 (Brady imputation and prosecutor file limitations)
- United States v. Robertson, 324 F.3d 1028 (sufficiency review and materiality in §1001 context)