United States v. Haire

Opinion handed down November 23, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion 

        Government agents overheard George Lee on a wiretapped phone arranging for the shipment of cocaine and marijuana from Houston to St. Louis.^[1]  Lee was later heard communicating with a drug supplier regarding the transportation of large sums of money from St. Louis to Houston.^[2]  Subsequently, Carmen Haire was spotted boarding a train in St. Louis with a destination of Houston.^[3]  He was stopped by a Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) agent and subsequently arrested.^[4]  Large sums of money were found on him; he was transporting this money for Lee.^[5]  Lee was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, conspiracy to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.^[6]  Haire was convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking.^[7]  Both men appealed.^[8]  One of Lee’s arguments presented on appeal was that insufficient foundation was laid for the wiretap recordings, such that they were inadmissible.^[9]  This summary will focus on that issue.

Smith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co.

Opinion handed down September 15, 2015

Link to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Opinion

        Smith, the named plaintiff in a putative class action, sued ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co. (“Conoco”) for a petroleum leak seeking injunctive relief and damages resulting therefrom.^[1]  Conoco removed to federal court, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Conoco’s motion to disqualify the class’s experts, granting Smith’s motion to certify the class.  Conoco appealed both decisions.^[2]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ultimately ruled the class did not meet the commonality requirement under Missouri law.^[3]

State v. Carrawell

Opinion handed down January 12, 2016

Link to Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

        In 2012, Derrick Carrawell was arrested for peace disturbance.^[1]  While Carrawell was already handcuffed and seated in the back of a police car, a police officer searched a plastic grocery bag Carrawell dropped in the process of the arrest.^[2]  The officer discovered heroin.^[3] Carrawell asserted the search of his bag was not lawful under the Fourth Amendment and moved to suppress the evidence of the heroin, but the trial court denied this motion.^[4]  Carrawell appealed his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to suppress evidence of heroin.^[5]  The Supreme Court of Missouri abrogated previous cases and narrowed the scope of lawful police searches in Missouri in agreeing with Carrawell that the search was not lawful.^[6]  It nevertheless affirmed the trial court’s judgment, however, holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply.^[7] 

State v. Randle

Opinion handed down August 4, 2015

Link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

        After a conviction of second-degree assault, Anwar Randle appealed on the grounds that it was error not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of third-degree assault.^[1]  The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the circuit court erred in this respect and vacated the judgment.^[2]

State v. Walter

Opinion handed down January 26, 2016

Link to Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

After shopping at multiple locations for items that could be used in making methamphetamine, Chadwick Leland Walter was arrested and charged with attempted manufacture of a controlled substance.^[1]  In the closing argument of Walter's trial, the prosecuting attorney included in a slideshow, shown to the jury, a picture of Walter wearing orange with the word “GUILTY” placed over Walter's face in large red lettering.^[2]  Walter appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial on the basis that the use of this altered photograph prevented a fair trial.^[3]   On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri, finding prejudicial error, vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial.^[4]

United States v. Lemons

Opinion handed down June 16, 2015

Link to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Opinion

Brandy Lemons was convicted of theft of government funds and making a false statement to the government in connection with the receipt of social security disability benefits for several years.^[1]  Lemons was initially denied benefits but then eventually was granted social security disability benefits.^[2]  After a few years of receiving these benefits, someone sent evidence to the Social Security Administration (“Administration”) that Lemons was capable of engaging, and in fact did engage, in activities that were inconsistent with the disability permitting Lemons to receive social security disability benefits.^[3]  After an investigation by the Administration, Lemons was charged with two counts of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and three counts of theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.^[4]  Lemons was convicted of all three counts of theft of government funds and one count of making a false statement.^[5]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction.^[6]