United States v. Douglas Meeks
742 F.3d 838
8th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Marcel MEEKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-1975.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 10, 2014.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 17, 2014.*

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2014.

the handcuffs from the occupants and holstered their guns. Thеre is no evidence that the agents acted in a threatening manner.

Moreover, Crisolis-Gonzalez‘s argument that the agents created a coercive environment is blunted by the fact that two other occupants similarly detained explicitly declined to consent. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we hold that Crisolis-Gonzalez voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom.

E. Post-Miranda Statements

As a final argument, Crisоlis-Gonzalez contends that due to all of the illegalities that occurred during the “knock and talk” at his apartment, the incriminating statements made during Agent Covarrubias‘s interrogation constitute “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See

. Specifically, he argues that the illegalities prevented his Miranda waiver from being ‍​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‍knowing and intelligent, and all subsequent statements should be suppressed.

“An individual‘s waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination . . . is valid if made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”

. Again, we look to the totality of the circumstances “[w]hen determining the voluntariness of a confession.”
.

Crisolis-Gonzalez‘s argument falls short. First, as discussed, there were no unlawful actions by the agents during their investigation. Accordingly, there is no illegality from which subsequent statements could stem as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Moreover, Crisolis-Gonzalez was advised of his Miranda rights twice, once at the apartment and again at the county jail. He read the Miranda-warnings form twice, signing the form once at his apartment and again at the county jail. We find nothing in the record, nor does Crisolis-Gonzalez point to any facts, demonstrating the invalidity of his waiver. Thus, his post-Miranda statements werе lawfully obtained.

III.

The district court‘s denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed.

* Judge Kelly did not participate in the consideration ‍​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‍or decision of this matter.

David E. Mullin, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant.

Richard D. Westphal, AUSA, argued, Davenport, IA, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Douglas Meeks was convicted of conspirаcy to distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base. After exhausting his apрeals, Meeks filed a motion for new trial, arguing a new trial is warranted because a government witness committed perjury. The district court1 denied the motion. We affirm.

I

Dоuglas Meeks was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base.

At trial, the government put on evidence overwhelmingly showing Meeks was guilty of the offenses of conviсtion. As relevant to this appeal, during the jury trial, Cardale Smith testified for the government concerning a controlled buy of cocainе base from Meeks. Smith testified he had contacted the police, admitted he bought drugs from Meeks, and offered to conduct a cоntrolled buy. At trial, Smith denied selling drugs during the time frame of the trial, but admitted to purchasing crack cocaine in amounts up to a half-ounce аnd selling crack cocaine prior to the controlled buy from Meeks. During ‍​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‍cross-examination, Smith was impeached when he admitted рast purchases of crack cocaine, admitted he hoped cooperation meant he would not face criminаl charges, and admitted he had a degree of bias against Meeks because of prior overlapping girlfriends. Smith also testified he had agreed to cooperate in order to help his father, who was under investigation for drug crimes. Smith‘s testimony regarding the controlled buy wаs bolstered by the testimony of Monique Nicholson who also participated in the controlled buy.

The jury found Meeks guilty of conspiracy tо distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base. The district court found Meeks hаd two prior felony drug convictions and sentenced Meeks to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and a concurrent term of 360 months on the individual distribution count. Meeks filed a timely appeal and this Court affirmed the conviction.

.

After Meeks‘s trial concluded, Smith was indicted for dealing cocaine. On June 30, 2010, Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base. In the factual basis of the plea agreement, Smith acknowledged the conspiracy ran from approximately September 1, 2007, to November 21, 2009, which included the dates of Meeks‘s trial.

Meeks filed a Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b) motion for new trial based on the newly-discovered evidence Smith had committed perjury by claiming he did not sell crack cocaine during the time of Meeks‘s trial. The district court denied the motion for new trial, concluding Smith‘s testimony at trial did not portray him as a person of upstanding character, and concluding if the case were retried with the new impeachment evidence, the new evidence could not produce an acquittal. The district court also noted the overwhelming evidence of guilt based on the testimony of many witnesses.

II

Meeks appeals the district court‘s denial of his Rule 33(b) motion for new trial. Rule 33(b) allows district courts to vacate a conviction and grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Rule 33(b) motions are disfavored and are reviewed under the ‍​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‍rigorous standard of a clear abuse of discretion.

. A defendant is not entitled to a new trial “unless the evidence weighs heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In order to receive a new trial, Meeks must show (1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable at the timе of trial; (2) Meeks was duly diligent in attempting to uncover the evidence; (3) the newly discovered evidence is material; and (4) the newly discovered evidence is such its emergence probably will result in an acquittal upon retrial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b);

.

The motion fails based on the third and fourth elements, which require Meeks to show the newly discovered evidence is material and would result in an acquittal upon retrial. The evidence at trial shows the evidence of Meeks‘s participation in the controlled buy was overwhelming, and the value of the additional impeaсhment material would be negligible at best. “[I]n order to meet the materiality requirement, newly discovered evidence must be ‘more than merеly . . . impeaching.‘”

(quoting
). At trial, Smith portrayed himself as a drug user and former drug dealer and was impeached by Meeks‘s counsel in various ways. The additiоnal impeachment evidence is not material and is insufficient to show an acquittal would be likely. See
(holding district court did not abuse ‍​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‍its discretion in denying a Rule 33(b) motion where “the evidence would serve only to impeach . . . testimony“);
(finding allegations victim‘s testimony was coached served only to impeach testimony and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Meeks‘s motion for a new trial.

III

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Notes

1
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Read the detailed case summary