United States v. Tate
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3875
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Tate, a felon, was prosecuted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and faced a 15-year ACCA minimum due to three predicate convictions.
- On October 4, 2007, St. Paul police responded to an assault at Luxor Lounge; Tate behaved suspiciously and fled, prompting Officer Siegfried to surveil him.
- Siegfried observed Tate kneel by a garbage can and place something there; a brown jersey glove (brownie) was found with a handgun protruding from beneath it.
- Forensics showed a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 revolver, a stolen firearm, with no identifiable fingerprints on gun or brownie; a DNA mixture on the firearm did not include Tate, while the brownie contained a mixed profile not excluding Tate.
- Tate stipulated the first and third elements of § 922(g)(1); the government presented evidence that Tate knowingly possessed the firearm, and the jury convicted him after trial.
- Tate moved for a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal and a Rule 33 new trial alleging Brady/Giglio suppression; the district court denied; Tate was sentenced to 15 years under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for possession | Tate argues evidence was speculative; no fingerprints or eyewitness to possession. | Government's Siegfried testimony, along with DNA on the brownie, supports knowing possession. | Sufficiency affirmed; record supports knowing possession. |
| Brady/Giglio materiality of suppressed impeachment evidence | Suppressed officer altercation evidence could have permitted impeachment under Rule 608(b). | Evidence was largely inadmissible and not material to guilt or punishment. | Brady claim fails; no material impact on outcome. |
| ACCA predicate convictions — number qualifying as predicates | Three 2005 drug convictions constitute one predicate offense as part of one episode. | Three 2005 drug convictions count as separate predicates; precedent allows distinct offenses from discrete transactions. | Three distinct predicates; Tate has four qualifying predicates total. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 266 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2001) (elements of § 922(g)(1) and interrelation of possession)
- United States v. Rankin, 902 F.2d 1344 (8th Cir. 1990) (sufficiency of evidence for firearm possession)
- United States v. Haney, 23 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994) (lack of fingerprint evidence not fatal to § 922(g)(1) conviction)
- United States v. Wilder, 597 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (jury is final arbiter of credibility)
- United States v. Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations and related rules)
- United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1992) (circumstantial evidence admissibility and review)
- United States v. Rush-Richardson, 574 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review with deference to jury verdict)
- United States v. Keltner, 147 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 1998) ( Brady materiality standard and suppression analysis)
- United States v. Van, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinct predicate offenses under § 924(e)(1))
- United States v. Johnston, 220 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2000) (precedential discussion on predicates under ACCA)