United States v. Reaves, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16633

Reaves was convicted of robbing an armored car and using a firearm during the robbery in Nebraska; sentencing was 240 months for the robbery and 120 months for the firearm, to run consecutively.
During the crime, an eyewitness identified two robbers; only the two robbers appeared in Hervey’s line of sight, with no bystanders observed.
DNA found on blood near the armored car matched Reaves; a Taser recovered at the scene belonged to Ruffin, Reaves’s child’s aunt, who later testified that Reaves had her purchase and register the Taser.
Ruffin admitted to lying to investigators about the Taser; Reaves sent letters to Ruffin attempting to influence or dissuade her testimony, including a script for her testimony.
Reaves argued the district court erred in limiting impeachment of Ruffin, argued Brady disclosure issues, argued the jury instruction on witnesses’ influence was improper, challenged sufficiency of evidence, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding no reversible error on the challenged grounds and concluding the evidence was sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Impeachment of Ruffin for bias	Reaves contends cross-exam inquiry into Ruffin's alleged insurance fraud bias was admissible.	Ruffin's alleged fraud is probative of bias under Rule 608(b); limit was error.	Harmless error; no plain error affecting substantial rights.
Brady disclosure of phone records	Non-disclosed phone records could impeach Ruffin's credibility.	Records were not material; no effect on outcome.	Not material; no reasonable probability of different result.
Jury instruction on witness influence	Letters to Ruffin justified the instruction on attempting to influence a witness.	Evidence supported the instruction.	Instruction supported by trial evidence and reasonable inferences.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence did not sufficiently link Reaves to the robbery.	There was overwhelming evidence tying Reaves to the crime.	Evidence sufficient for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel rendering ineffective assistance; issue should be raised under §2255.	Appropriate to pursue later in collateral proceeding.	Not reviewed on direct appeal; to be raised in §2255 proceeding.

United States v. Amahia, 825 F.2d 177 (8th Cir. 1987) (impeachment for specific instances of conduct admissible to show truthfulness)
United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for preserved evidentiary issues)
United States v. Richardson, 537 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for impact on substantial rights)
United States v. Coplen, 565 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2009) (Brady nondisclosure; materiality demands different outcome probability)
United States v. Grajales-Montoya, 117 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 1997) (witness-influence instruction proper under similar facts)
United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Listman, 636 F.3d 425 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard)
United States v. Quintanilla, 25 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 1994) (materiality of exculpatory evidence for new trial standard)
United States v. Deavault, 190 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review of Brady denial)
United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (evidence and inference in sufficiency review)
United States v. Alston, 626 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2010) (preservation and review of evidentiary issues)