United States v. Glinn
| Decision Date | 27 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-3021,19-3021 |
| Citation | 965 F.3d 940 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dante Jamal GLINN Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jacob Alden Schunk, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Dante Jamal Glinn, Pro Se
Raphael M. Scheetz, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
A jury convicted Dante Glinn of theft of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 924(m). We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Glinn, 863 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2017). Glinn subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that new evidence showed another person who looked like him had been found in possession of the stolen firearm and that a jury would likely acquit him if it was shown this new evidence. The district court1 denied the motion without a hearing. We affirm.
This case stems from the August 25, 2015 theft of a Kimber .45 pistol from Sports Outfitters, a federally licensed firearms dealer in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. At trial, the government introduced the following evidence to prove that Glinn had stolen the firearm: (1) a surveillance video of the theft, which allowed the jury to compare the thief's appearance in the video to Glinn's appearance at trial; (2) four witnesses familiar with Glinn who testified that he was the person in the video stealing the handgun; (3) photographs from an August 27, 2015 traffic stop that showed Glinn wearing the same type of shirt and pants as the person in the surveillance video, and with a bandage on the same arm; (4) an officer who testified that, during the August 27 traffic stop, he told Glinn "he had matched the description of somebody that was [at Sports Outfitters], acting kind of hinky," and Glinn responded that "stealing wasn't in his category"; and (5) evidence showing that, a few hours after the theft, Glinn used a false identity when getting treatment for an injury to the same arm that the individual in the surveillance video had bandaged.
Glinn argued that he did not steal the firearm, highlighting that: (1) no fingerprint or DNA evidence connected him to the theft; (2) the owner of a nearby business, who had seen and spoken to the thief, failed to identify Glinn's photograph in a photo array; (3) Glinn was present for a court hearing at the county courthouse, which is about a nine-minute drive from Sports Outfitters, approximately 30 minutes after the firearm was stolen; and (4) Glinn has sleeve tattoos on his arms, but sleeve tattoos are not readily visible on the thief's arms in the video.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. At sentencing, the government introduced evidence that, on August 27, 2015, officers recovered shell casings from a .45 caliber pistol outside of an apartment complex in Cedar Rapids. A witness testified that Glinn had fired the shots. The district court granted the government's motion for an upward departure based on this evidence. See United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 5K2.0, 5K2.21 (2015).
Nearly two years later, Glinn filed a pro se motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). He alleged that, in December 2017, a person named R.L. Tate was found in possession of a Kimber .45 caliber pistol with the same serial number as the firearm stolen from Sports Outfitters. Glinn also alleged that Tate was living in the Cedar Rapids area at the time the gun was stolen and bears a "striking physical resemblance" to Glinn but has no tattoos on his arms. Glinn did not say how he knew this information. He supported his motion with court records relating to Tate. These records included a headshot photograph, but they did not indicate whether Tate was found in possession of a firearm with a certain serial number, whether he has tattoos on his arms, or whether he was living near Cedar Rapids on August 25, 2015. Glinn requested an evidentiary hearing on the motion, arguing that ballistics tests would show the stolen firearm was not related to the shell casings from the August 27, 2015 shooting.
The government opposed Glinn's motion, arguing that he had "not provided any actual evidence supporting his hypotheses regarding Mr. Tate" and that, even if he had, the evidence would not warrant a new trial. The district court denied Glinn's motion without a hearing, finding that Glinn had only offered "unproven hypotheses" and had not "demonstrated that any new evidence exists." The court further found that "even if such evidence were available, it would not undermine the evidence linking [Glinn] to the August 25, 2015 theft of the .45 caliber Kimber handgun from Sports Outfitters." Therefore, the court concluded, Glinn had not "met his burden of establishing the existence of any new evidence which is likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted." This appeal followed.
The district court may grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence "if the interest of justice so requires." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). "Motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored" and will generally be granted "only if the evidence was not discovered until after the trial; there was no lack of diligence by the movant; and the new evidence is material, more than merely cumulative or impeaching, and likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted." United States v. Dogskin, 265 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2001). The district court has "broad discretion in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence." United States v. LaFuente, 991 F.2d 1406, 1409 (8th Cir. 1993). We will reverse the court's ruling "only if we find a clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 1408.
Glinn argues that the district court abused its discretion by characterizing his factual allegations as "unproven hypotheses" rather than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lewis
..."district court may grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence ‘if the interest of justice so requires.’ " United States v. Glinn , 965 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2020), quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) . The movant must show "(1) the evidence is in fact newly discovered since trial; (2) di......
-
United States v. Spellman
...178 at 4. “The district court may grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence ‘if the interest of justice so requires.'” Glinn, 965 F.3d at 942 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. The movant must show “(1) the evidence is in fact newly discovered since trial; (2) diligence on his part; (3) t......
-
United States v. Sully
...new trial, the Court first determines whether the evidence was discovered after trial and whether counsel was diligent in seeking it. Glinn, 965 F.3d at 942. In this case, Counsel and Defendant aver that they were not aware of the taped phone call until after trial. (Doc. 245-1, 245-2). The......
-
United States v. Johnson
... ... notice of Gentry's presentence investigation report ... “A ... district court may grant a new trial based on newly ... discovered evidence ‘if the interest of justice so ... requires.'” United States v. Glinn, 965 F.3d 940 ... (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a)). To receive ... a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant ... must show: (1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable at the ... time of trial; (2) defendant was duly diligent in attempting ... ...
-
Review Proceedings
...showed that counsel sufficiently advised appellant and counsel’s actions did not rise to level of ineffective assistance); U.S. v. Glinn, 965 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2020) (no abuse of discretion in denying evidentiary hearing because district court can ordinarily decide factual issues bas......