United States v. Walker
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18651
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Walker was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition after police stopped his BMW for a cracked windshield, smelled unburned marijuana, searched the car, and found a shotgun, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia; Walker was convicted by a jury.
- Pretrial, Walker moved to suppress evidence from the stop (denied after a hearing), sought a competency evaluation (causing delays), and moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds (denied).
- At trial the government called Officer Golgart; defense sought to cross-examine about an internal affairs (IA) investigation into Golgart’s credibility, but the district court limited that probing.
- Walker proposed jury instructions emphasizing that driving a car is not proof of knowledge of its contents and that the government must prove knowledge of illegality; the district court rejected both.
- At sentencing the court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), finding three prior Minnesota convictions qualified as violent felonies and imposed a 20-year sentence; on appeal the ACCA classification of the Minnesota burglary convictions was challenged.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the ACCA-based sentence and remanded for resentencing because the record did not permit applying the modified categorical approach to one prior burglary conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop/search and suppression of evidence | Crack did not meaningfully obstruct view; stop and any extension were unlawful under Rodriguez | Crack provided objective basis for stop; smell of unburned marijuana gave probable cause to search | Stop and search were lawful; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Speedy-trial (Speedy Trial Act & Sixth Amendment) | Delays for competency evaluation (transport and late report) should count, violating statutory and constitutional rights | Delays were excludable as competency proceedings per McGhee; Barker factors do not show Sixth Amendment violation | No Speedy Trial Act violation; Sixth Amendment claim denied |
| Limitation of cross-examination about IA investigation | IA inquiry bore on officer’s credibility and habit of inaccuracy; Confrontation Clause violated | IA matter was marginally relevant, risked juror confusion, and traffic-stop legality already resolved | Limitation was within district court’s discretion; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| ACCA predicate status of prior Minnesota burglary conviction | Prior burglary convictions supported ACCA enhancement | PSR and record sufficiently established predicates (district court) | Sentence vacated; court must apply modified categorical approach on remand because record insufficient to show which statutory alternative formed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (officer may not extend traffic stop beyond time to handle traffic matter without reasonable suspicion)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (definition of generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- McGhee v. United States, 532 F.3d 733 (delays awaiting competency evaluation are excludable under Speedy Trial Act)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor balancing test for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
- Bruguier v. United States, 735 F.3d 754 (knowledge-of-factual-elements principle)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (modified categorical approach and proper sources for determining predicate offense)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (clarifies plain-error scope for categorical-modified approach issues)