Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01245/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karl Lynn Hunt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1245

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Karl Lynn Hunt, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: June 25, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Iowa troopers stopped a vehicle for speeding. The trooper called a drug dog

to the scene, and the dog alerted to the car’s trunk. Twenty-five pounds of cocaine

were found inside. Karl Lynn Hunt, a passenger in the car, was arrested along with

the car’s driver. Hunt requested an attorney. Later, at the police post, Hunt was

approached by Agent Lamp of both the State of Iowa Narcotics Task Force and the

Federal DEA Task Force. After Agent Lamp introduced himself as a member of both

the state and federal drug task forces, showed Hunt his credentials, and asked Hunt

if he would be willing to cooperate, Hunt asked the agent, “How much money would

it take for you to keep the dope and for us to go home?” The Government charged

Appellate Case: 04-1245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781310 
*

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Hunt with drug offenses and with obstruction of justice for trying to bribe the agent.

After the drugs were suppressed, Hunt was tried and convicted on the obstruction of

justice charge. Hunt appeals, and we affirm.

Hunt first contends the district court*

 committed error in overruling his Batson

challenge to the Government’s peremptory strike of the only African-American

prospective juror. The Government gave two reasons for the strike: the prospective

juror’s brother had been convicted of an armed robbery, and the juror’s mother was

a lawyer. The district court initially denied the strike, stating that although the

Government “in no way” had any ill motive, there was a “rational basis upon which

you can conclude this strike is based upon the fact that he is the sole AfricanAmerican on the jury panel.” After reviewing case law, however, the district court

excused the juror, stating “had I read the United States versus Roebke case two hours

ago, my ruling would have been different.” See United States v. Roebke, 333 F.3d

911, 913 (8th Cir. 2003) ( holding strike of the sole African-American prospective

juror is alone insufficient to create a prima facie case of discrimination). We review

the district court’s rejection of Hunt’s Batson challenge for clear error, id. at 912, and

find none. The Government offered race-neutral reasons for the strike, and the

district court’s finding that the Government did not purposefully discriminate is not

clearly erroneous. For the first time on appeal, Hunt points to jurors who were not

stricken, asserting they are similarly situated to the African-American juror. Because

Hunt did not identify any similarly situated jurors at trial, we do not consider the

claim on appeal. United States v. Boyd, 168 F.3d 1077, 1078 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Hunt next asserts the district court should have suppressed his statement

offering money to Agent Lamp because the statement was the product of an illegal

detention and arrest and was obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment

Appellate Case: 04-1245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781310 
-3-

rights. When a defendant commits a new and distinct crime during an unlawful

detention, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not bar evidence of the

new crime. See United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 619 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1997);

United States v. Garcia-Jordan, 860 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v.

Bailey, 691 F.2d 1009, 1016-17 (11th Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Udey, 748

F.2d 1231, 1240 (8th Cir. 1984). Likewise, Hunt’s attempted bribe was not protected

by the Fifth Amendment’s right to counsel because it was not made in response to

police interrogation or its functional equivalent. United States v. Withorn, 204 F.3d

790, 796 (8th Cir. 2000); see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980)

(defining interrogation as conceptualized in Miranda as express questioning or any

words or actions the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an

incriminating response). Here, Agent Lamp merely identified himself to Hunt and

asked him if he would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement. Hunt’s

statement was not made in response to any question the agent asked. Similarly, Hunt

waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent because he did not equivocally

express his desire to remain silent. Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124, 1131 (8th

Cir. 2001). 

Hunt last contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Specifically,

Hunt asserts the established facts do not satisfy the elements required for conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 1510(a). Section 1510(a) states, “Whoever willfully endeavors by

means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information

relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a

criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five

years, or both.” The district court properly concluded § 1510(a) applied to Hunt’s

attempt to prevent Agent Lamp from reporting Hunt’s drug offense to other criminal

investigators. See United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1364 (8th Cir. 1988)

(defendant need only believe witness may give information to federal officials, and

to prevent this communication, to violate § 1510(a)). The jury could properly

conclude from Agent Lamp’s testimony that he was a federal criminal investigator.

Appellate Case: 04-1245 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781310 
-4-

We thus affirm Hunt’s conviction for attempting to bribe Agent Lamp.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1245 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781310