165 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1999), 98-1468, United States v. Goodson

Docket Nº:98-1468.
Citation:165 F.3d 610
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Terrence Eugene GOODSON, Appellant.
Case Date:January 11, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 610

165 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1999)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Terrence Eugene GOODSON, Appellant.

No. 98-1468.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

January 11, 1999

Submitted Oct. 21, 1998.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 17, 1999.

Page 611

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 612

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

Patrick J. Reinert, Cedar Rapids, IA, argued for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, ROSS and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

Terrence Eugene Goodson appeals from a judgment of the district court 1 following his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

Around 1:00 A.M. on March 11, 1996, Waterloo, Iowa police officer Mark Meyer applied for a warrant to search Goodson's home for crack cocaine. In his application, Meyer stated he had known Goodson for a number of years and had heard from concerned citizens and confidential informants that Goodson was involved with trafficking crack cocaine. In particular, Meyer stated that a reliable informant had advised him that Goodson lived with LaTanya Graves at 607 Donald Street, in recent days Goodson was selling crack cocaine from that address, and on March 10 there were several vehicles parked for short periods of time in front of the house. Meyer indicated that utilities for the address were listed in Graves' name and several vehicles, including a red Mercedes Benz, were registered to her at that address. Meyer also stated that another informant had observed Goodson selling crack cocaine from the red Mercedes and a third informant had purchased crack cocaine from a woman, who obtained it from Goodson. In an attachment, Meyer indicated that he had known one of the informants for seven years and the informant had supplied reliable information leading to over 40 arrests, seizure of contraband and various criminal charges.

Shortly after a state court judge issued the warrant, at 1:44 a.m. state law enforcement officers arrived at Goodson's home. They knocked twice, announced their presence, and waited twenty seconds before forcibly entering the house. Once inside, Meyer read Goodson his Miranda rights and asked him if there were any drugs in the house. Goodson led Meyer to a closet where Goodson retrieved a shoe box containing a large amount of crack cocaine. Officers also seized other items, including a briefcase containing small pieces of crack cocaine. During an interview at the police station, Goodson admitted that the crack cocaine belonged to him and also stated that he had sold an additional ten ounces of crack cocaine.

After indictment, Goodson filed a motion to suppress, asserting the warrant was unsupported by probable cause and the nighttime, forcible entry was illegal. He also requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The court denied his request for a Franks hearing, but held an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion. After the court denied the motion, Goodson filed a renewed motion to suppress and renewed request for a Franks hearing. The court again denied the motion and the request and the case proceeded to trial.

At trial, among other things, the government presented Meyer's testimony, the testimony of a chemist, and introduced the seized drugs. Before trial, the government had informed Goodson that other items seized during the search, including the shoe box, a cellular telephone, an electronic memo device, and an address book, were missing. Dennis Heiser, a police property technician, testified that after he received an order from the county clerk advising him that the items were no longer needed for pending proceedings, pursuant to routine, he destroyed items

Page 613

with no monetary value and offered items with value for sale. Heiser, however, admitted, he had failed to read an attachment to the order informing him of the federal proceedings and claimed that in his five years with the police department this was the only time he had accidentally destroyed evidence. Meyer had also testified that he could not recall any other time that evidence had been mistakenly destroyed. The court instructed the jury that if it found that the lost or destroyed evidence was material, it could infer the evidence would have been unfavorable to the government. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

After the verdict, Goodson's counsel learned from an attorney that Heiser had destroyed evidence in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP