United States v. Steven Blakeney
876 F.3d 1126
8th Cir.2017Background
- Steven Blakeney, a Pine Lawn police sergeant, placed a campaign sign depicting opponent Nakisha Ford’s mugshot in a store window after the store owner refused permission. Ford removed the sign; the owner did not object.
- Blakeney and other officers later confronted the store, coerced store manager Sam Samad (and his brother) to call 911 and to sign false statements (prepared by Sam’s son) blaming Ford; the Samads testified at trial that the statements were false and drafted at Blakeney’s direction.
- Blakeney approved Incident Report No. 13-1337 and initiated a “wanted” for Ford; prosecutor Anthony Gray and officers then arrested Ford, who was later charged, pleaded guilty to a reduced littering offense, and fined.
- Blakeney was indicted and convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), (2) deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), and (3) falsifying a record (18 U.S.C. § 1519).
- On appeal Blakeney challenged sufficiency of the evidence (conspiracy and § 242), admission of an unsigned police report (best evidence rule), admission of Mayor Caldwell’s statements (hearsay / co-conspirator exception), a prosecutor remark in closing (alleged comment on silence), and the district judge’s responses to jury questions (including denial of transcripts and an off-the-bench response).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence (§241) | Government failed to prove an agreement with any coconspirator; Sam was coerced so could not form agreement. | Blakeney argued lack of agreement and reliance on coerced statements; noted mayor was not charged. | Evidence was sufficient: jury could infer agreement between Blakeney and Mayor Caldwell (motive, contacts, Caldwell’s presence and statements). |
| Sufficiency of deprivation under color of law (§242) | Arrest was lawful because Officer Brock and Prosecutor Gray independently developed probable cause. | Blakeney claimed arrest justified by independent probable cause from Brock/Gray. | Held sufficient: Blakeney supplied the information and directed actions; Brock/Gray did not independently create probable cause. |
| Admission of unsigned police report (best evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 1002) | Admission of Exhibit 16 (unsigned duplicate) violated best evidence rule; no signature to prove Blakeney approved it. | Government relied on Brock’s testimony that Blakeney provided and approved the report; duplicates admissible absent authenticity question. | No plain error: unsigned report admissible as duplicate/original equivalent and corroborated by testimony. |
| Admissibility of Mayor Caldwell’s statements (hearsay / co-conspirator exception) | Statements were hearsay; Caldwell was not established as coconspirator before admission. | Statements admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as statements by a coconspirator made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. | No plain error: conditioned on later evidence, the record supported admission under the co-conspirator exception. |
| Prosecutor comment in closing (alleged comment on defendant’s silence) | Prosecutor improperly commented on Blakeney’s failure to testify when rebutting defense opening (summons vs arrest). | Government argued rebuttal of defense theory; other witnesses could have testified to the summons claim, so comment not a direct comment on silence. | Not improper: context indicated comment targeted lack of evidentiary support for defense theory, not defendant’s silence. |
| Judge’s replies to jury (transcript request & document clarifying falsification) | Judge’s out-of-presence reply about transcript and terse answer on which document was falsified prejudiced Blakeney and violated his right to be present. | Court later informed counsel and gave opportunity to object; instruction referred jury to written charge identifying Report 13-1337. | No plain error: counsel was notified and could have objected; jury instructions identified the report; denial of transcripts not unfair (requested testimony favored government). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Huyck, 849 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Gray, 700 F.3d 377 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversal only if no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1972) (conspiracy requires actual agreement)
- United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (agreement element for conspiracy)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (elements of § 242: willfulness and color of law)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error review framework)
- United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2000) (requirements for co-conspirator statement exception)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (court may consider co-conspirator’s statement in determining existence of conspiracy)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (prosecutorial comment on ambiguous remarks should not be lightly inferred as intended to comment on defendant’s silence)