United States v. Tyvarus Lindsey
702 F.3d 1092
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lindsey and Raleigh were convicted of one count of possessing a firearm to further drug trafficking and three counts of murder in connection with a drug-trafficking conspiracy.
- Cell phone recovered on Lindsey at arrest and cell records placed him near the crime scene with co-conspirators just before the murders.
- The government sought to introduce a 2005 drug-related crime (robbery and shooting) as Rule 404(b) evidence to prove intent, motive, and foreseeability.
- Statements from Albert “Bozo” Hill, a deceased co-conspirator, were admitted at trial and challenged as Confrontation Clause and Rule 804(b)(3) evidence.
- The district court denied Lindsey’s suppression motion, admitted the 2005 crime evidence with limiting instructions, and admitted Hill statements; the jury convicted on all counts.
- On appeal, Lindsey and Raleigh challenge suppression rulings and evidentiary rulings but the Midwest Court of Appeals affirms the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of cell phone search | Lindsey challenges warrantless search/consent validity. | Raleigh joins Lindsey; consent invalid due to lack of authority. | Consent valid; cell phone admitted. |
| Admissibility of 404(b) evidence | 2005 crime is improper propensity evidence and prejudicial. | Evidence relevant to intent/motive/foreseeability; limited and properly instructed. | Not an abuse; admissible 404(b) evidence. |
| Hill statements – Confrontation Clause | First statement violates Crawford, plain error review applicable. | No error or harmless beyond substantial rights. | Plain error review; not reversible given overwhelming evidence. |
| Hill statements – Rule 804(b)(3) admissibility | Hill statements not trustworthy or against penal interest. | Some statements admissible as non-hearsay/verbal acts/against interest. | Admissible; no reversal required. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug conspiracy | Evidence shows Lindsey and Raleigh joined conspiracy to distribute drugs. | Credibility issues; insufficient direct evidence of conspiracy. | Sufficient evidence; reasonable jury could find conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of suppression review (factuals de novo; law de novo))
- United States v. Amratiel, 622 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2010) (apparent authority for third-party consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1984) (third-party consent validity framework)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority standard)
- United States v. Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d 1162 (8th Cir. 2008) (consent context; contextual impressions allowed)
- United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004) (404(b) notice and prejudice balance; relevance to intent)
- United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482 (8th Cir. 2011) (limiting instructions reduce prejudice in 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Honken, 541 F.3d 1146 (8th Cir. 2008) (Confrontation/forensic considerations re hearsay)
- United States v. Eneff, 79 F.3d 104 (8th Cir. 1996) (sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conspiracy)