United States v. Tarresse Leonard
4 F.4th 1134
11th Cir.2021Background
- Police observed Emanuel Jackson point a handgun at a crowd; Jackson, Tarresse Leonard, and Dexter Franklin fled; officers chased and entered a house, arrested Jackson and Leonard, and found a handgun and suspected narcotics.
- Officers executed a warrant on the back room and recovered a loaded handgun and narcotics; DNA linked Leonard to the firearm.
- A federal grand jury charged Leonard and Jackson under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); after the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif, the government superseded the indictment to add the phrase "did so knowingly."
- Leonard moved to suppress evidence and later sought to reopen the suppression hearing based on (1) the detective’s later misidentification on grainy video and (2) lab tests showing items initially thought to be controlled substances were not.
- A jury convicted Leonard of felon-in-possession; the district court applied the ACCA enhancement based on three prior cocaine-trafficking convictions and sentenced him to 20 years. Leonard appealed, raising challenges to the indictment, suppression rulings, the warrant affidavit, cumulative error, and his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Leonard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency / Rehaif knowledge element | Indictment tracked §922(g), superseding language "did so knowingly" and grand jury saw evidence of knowledge; any drafting ambiguity is harmless | Indictment failed to allege the knowledge-of-status element post-Rehaif, so it was legally insufficient | Any omission was not jurisdictional and, even if imperfect, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction stands |
| Motion to reopen suppression hearing (misidentification; lab tests) | Detective’s later misidentification of grainy video does not undermine his contemporaneous observations; lab results are hindsight and do not negate probable cause at the time | Newly disclosed misidentification and lab results undermine the probable-cause finding and warrant reopening the hearing | District court did not abuse discretion; new information did not undercut probable cause and reopening was not required |
| Challenge to search-warrant affidavit omissions (Jackson’s alleged ownership statement) | Inclusion of Jackson’s alleged statement would not have changed the totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause determination | Omission was deliberate/reckless and material to probable cause, warranting a Franks hearing | No substantial preliminary showing of materiality; probable cause would remain even if the statement were included; no hearing required |
| Cumulative error / trial rulings and prosecutor remark | Excluded evidence was not probative; defense theory and related issues were covered in trial and jury instructions; prosecutor’s isolated remark was cured by instruction; double jeopardy claim foreclosed | Multiple rulings and prosecutorial statements cumulatively deprived Leonard of a fair trial | No cumulative error: isolated rulings were harmless or non-prejudicial; conviction affirmed |
| ACCA enhancement / whether priors are separate | Leonard’s three prior cocaine-trafficking crimes occurred on different days and were temporally distinct despite being sentenced the same day | Because sentences were imposed the same day, the convictions should be treated as one for ACCA purposes | Offenses, not convictions, must be temporally distinct; priors were separate offenses and ACCA enhancement was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (Supreme Court holding §922(g) requires proof defendant knew his prohibited status)
- Cotton v. United States, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (omissions in an indictment do not automatically deprive a court of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020) (absence of an element in an indictment is not necessarily a jurisdictional defect)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard applies to constitutional errors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishing structural errors from those subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (probable cause may be based on officers’ contemporaneous observations)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause assessed by what a reasonable officer knew at the time)
- United States v. Brundidge, 170 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1999) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause to search)
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for obtaining a Franks hearing; requires substantial preliminary showing)
- United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (ACCA requires predicate crimes to be temporally distinct)