United States v. Robin Sims
776 F.3d 583
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Robin Sims was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); trial scheduled for April 28, 2014.
- Magistrate judge ordered government to disclose all expert testimony by April 10, 2014 (seven days before final pretrial conference).
- Police submitted the gun for DNA testing soon after arrest (summer 2013); a lab analyst mistakenly thought no comparative sample for Sims existed and did not complete a comparison or follow up.
- Government did not check the lab while plea discussions continued; only after Sims elected trial (April 14) did the government contact the lab and request expedited testing.
- Lab report (April 21) positively linked Sims to the gun; government disclosed the report and a new expert on April 22 and filed supplemental expert notices days before trial.
- District court found the government acted with reckless disregard for the discovery deadline, that Sims was prejudiced, and that lesser sanctions would not secure compliance—excluded the DNA testimony; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of late-disclosed DNA evidence was an abuse of discretion | Sims: Exclusion necessary because late disclosure deprived counsel time to review evidence, cross-examine, and obtain rebuttal expert; prejudicial and not cured by continuance | Government: Continuance would have cured prejudice and protected speedy-trial rights; exclusion was excessive—court should use least severe adequate sanction | Court affirmed exclusion: district court did not abuse discretion given government’s reckless disregard, prejudice to Sims, and need to deter future violations |
| Whether government’s conduct amounted to more than negligence | Sims: Government failed to monitor lab results and therefore acted culpably | Government: Delay resulted from the lab, not government misconduct | Court: Government used the lab and failed to follow up; its representations to the court were inconsistent—finding of reckless disregard sustained |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by late disclosure | Sims: Late disclosure prevented timely review, preparation for cross-exam, and retention of a rebuttal expert | Government: Continuance could remove prejudice | Court: Prejudice shown because DNA was central to prosecution and timing prevented meaningful defense preparation |
| Whether lesser sanctions would secure future compliance | Sims: Only exclusion would deter similar government conduct and remedy prejudice | Government: Continuance or other lesser sanctions adequate | Court: Exclusion reasonable to deter violations and maintain integrity/schedule; lesser sanctions insufficient in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DeCoteau, 186 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1999) (courts should consider least severe sanction that will secure compliance)
- United States v. Polk, 715 F.3d 238 (8th Cir. 2013) (sanctions for discovery violations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Davis, 244 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court may exclude evidence for discovery violations under Rule 16)
- United States v. Amaya, 750 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2014) (three-factor test for evaluating exclusion sanctions: reason for delay, prejudice, and efficacy of lesser sanctions)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (preclusion sanction may be necessary to protect trial integrity and deter discovery violations)
- United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir. 1988) (exclusion may be required to maintain court schedule and integrity)
- United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979) (no abuse of discretion in suppressing evidence not disclosed per discovery order)