United States v. Stroud
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340
8th Cir.2012Background
- Stroud was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm in federal court and sentenced to 120 months.
- Officers pursued Stroud after gunfire; he dropped a rolled shirt revealing a revolver; a bullet matched the seized gun.
- Stroud initially confessed to possessing the gun and shooting Davis to satisfy a heroin debt.
- Davis died from gunshot wounds; a lead projectile matched Stroud's gun; fingerprinting on the gun was negative.
- Stroud claimed vindictive prosecution for a prior § 1983 action and challenged trial rulings, cross-examination limits, and evidence.
- Stroud sought a new trial based on a joint police memorandum obtained in a civil suit; the district court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vindictive prosecution dismissal | Stroud: indictment vindictive due to § 1983 suit. | USAO: no vindictive motive shown; timing insufficient. | No vindictive-prosecution abuse; no discovery abuse. |
| Cross-examination limits | Stroud: limits on Earley impeachment were reversible error. | Stroud's impeachment lines were not material or prejudicial. | District court acted within its discretion; no reversible error. |
| Admission of prior machine-gun conviction | Conviction unduly prejudicial under 404(b). | Conviction relevant to knowledge/intent and sufficiently similar. | Not an abuse; probative for knowledge/intent; proper limiting instruction given. |
| Judgment of acquittal | Evidence insufficient to prove possession element (fingerprints lacking). | Testimony supported possession beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence for knowledge/possession; reasonable jury could convict. |
| Sentencing and acquitted conduct | Use of acquitted murder in sentencing may violate rights; insufficient explanation. | Acquitted conduct permissible; sentence explained within guidelines. | No plain error; sentence within guidelines; acquitted-conduct consideration upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campbell, 410 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2005) (vindictive-prosecution framework; discretion of prosecutors)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (constitutional limits on prosecutorial vindictiveness)
- United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2004) (burden on proving vindictiveness)
- United States v. Kelley, 152 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 1998) (discretion in vindictive-prosecution analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 91 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1996) (timing and awareness considerations in vindictive-prosecution claims)
- United States v. Basile, 109 F.3d 1304 (8th Cir. 1997) (double jeopardy considerations in related prosecutions)
- United States v. Papakee, 573 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2009) (consideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing)
- United States v. Canania, 532 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2008) (constitutional considerations of acquitted conduct)
- United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences)