# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 15 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Pres to n P op e,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Aug us t 1 4, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Pres to n Po pe of ba nk ro bb ery, Hob bs Act ro bb ery, two co un ts

of br an di sh in g a fir earm du rin g th os e cri m es of vi ol en ce, an d un la wfu l po ss es si on of

a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

. Se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 (a), 21 13 (a), 92 4( c),92 2( g)

. On ap p e al

, Po pe arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in 1

de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al ba se d on rem ark s of a pr os pe ct iv e juro r du rin g vo ir

di re

. Po pe al so rai se s fo r th e fir st ti m e a Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s ch al le ng e to

te st im on y th at m en ti on ed hi s po st -arr es t si le nc e. W e co nc lu de t h a t t h e r e was no

rev ers ib le erro r, an d t he refo re af fir m

.

I.

The ch arg es ag ai ns t Po pe aro se fro m arm ed ro bb eri es in Om ah a at a W al gr een s

p h a r mac y an d a br an ch of U.S. Ban k in si de a gr oc ery st or e on Aug us t 11

, 20 15

. W it ne ss es rep or te d th at two su sp ect s wearin g sweat sh irt s, cov eri ng th ei r face s wit h

a sk i m as k or ba nd an a, an d br an di sh in g ha nd gu ns co m m it te d bo th cri m es

. A ba nk

em pl oyee pl aced a tra ck in g de vi ce in to on e ro bb er’s ba g, an d po li ce tra ced th e de vi ce

to an ab an do ne d whi te car th at ha d be en st ol en

. A wit ne ss th ere rep or te d se ei ng two

m en pa rk a whi te car an d d riv e o ff i n a gre en va n.

Po pe was ap pr eh en de d a few da y s la te r aft er an Om ah a po li ce of fic er at te m

pt ed

to st op a gr een mi n i v an wit h a br ok en ta il li gh t. Po pe fle d th e va n th ro ug h y ard s in

a res id en ti al ne ig hb or ho od un ti l he was de ta in ed

. Po li ce fo un d a lo ad ed fir earm , be ari ng Po pe ’s DNA, in th e pa th of hi s fli gh t. The da y b e f o r e h i s a r res t, Po pe

acco m pa ni e d h i s s is te r whe n sh e bo ug ht a Fo rd Exp ed it io n wit h cas h; on e pi ece of

th e cu rren cy us ed in t h e p u r c h a se tu rn ed ou t to be a ba it bi ll ta ke n in th e ba nk

ro bb ery.

The cas e pr oc eed ed to tr i a l

. A f t e r jury se le ct io n, Po pe m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

ba se d on rem ark s by a pr os pe ct iv e juro r du rin g vo ir di re . The d is tri ct co ur t de ni ed

th e m ot io n, an d th e jury ev en tu al ly fo un d Po pe gu il ty on al l co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1

Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-im

po se d a to ta l se nt en ce of 74 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, co ns is ti ng of two co nc ur ren t

te rm s of 24 0 m on th s fo r th e ro bb ery co un ts an d th ree co ns ecu ti ve te rm s of 87 m on th s,

30 0 m on th s, an d 1 20 m on th s o n t he th ree fi rear m s ch arg es

.

II.

Po pe fir st ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de n i a l of hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

. Dur in g vo ir di re , a pr os pe ct iv e juro r st at ed th at he was “ rel at ed to al l th e Po pe s th at

are in to wn,” th at he ha s “ a si de of th e fam il y th at ha s ki nd of li k e

. . . r e oc cu rri ng

ru n- in s wit h th e la w,” an d th at fam il y m em be rs “ ha ve be en arre st ed fo r us in g fir earm s
du rin g m ul ti pl e di ffer en t th in gs .” He op in ed th at th es e rel at iv es “ ge ne ral ly ha d wha t

was co m in g to th em .” The pr os pe ct iv e juro r al so de sc rib ed hi s own tro ub le s wit h th e

la w, an d ad m it te d th at he wou ld di sc ou nt th e te st im on y of a po li ce of fic er du e to hi s

ne ga ti ve ex pe rie nc es wit h l aw en fo rcem en t.

The di st ric t co ur t ul ti m at el y st ru ck th is pr os pe ct iv e juro r, bu t Po pe m ov ed fo r

a m is tri al aft er jury se le ct io n ba se d on th e ve ni rem an ’s co m m en ts in fro nt of th e ot he r

pr os pe ct iv e juro rs

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e moti on , r eas on in g th at “ th ere’s no

in di cat io n th at th is Mr. Po pe is

, in fact

, rel at ed to an y of th e Po p e s t h a t [ th e

ve ni rem an ] m ay be acq ua in te d wit h,” an d th at “ th e si de of [th e ve ni rem an ’s] fam il y
th at ge ts in to tro ub le was no t sp eci fic al ly id en ti fie d a s t he Po pe si de of th e fam il y .”

Po pe arg ue s on ap pe al th at it is “ hi gh ly pr ob ab le an d reas on ab ly cert ai n” th at

th e pr os pe ct iv e juro r’s co m m en ts ne g a t i v e l y a ffec te d th e tri al jury’ s pe rcep ti on s of

Po pe

. Acco rd in g to Po pe , th e im pa ct of th e ve ni rem an ’s st at em en ts on th e juro rs who

were se le ct ed vi ol at ed hi s rig ht un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t to a fai r an d im pa rti al
jury. W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v.

Pen dl et on , 83 2 F .3d 93 4, 9 43 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

-3

-Po pe ’s as se rti on th at th es e co m m en ts ren de red th e en ti re ve ni re bi as ed ag ai ns t

hi m is to o sp ecu la ti ve to warra nt a ne w tri al

. As th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed

, al th ou gh

th e ve ni rem an sa id th at he was rel at ed to “ al l th e Po pe s” in to wn, he di d no t sp eci fy

whi ch si de of hi s fam il y ha d “ ru n- in s” wit h th e la w, ne ve r sa id th at Po pe hi m se lf ha d

pr io r le ga l pr ob le m s, an d cl ari fie d th at he di d no t ev en kn ow Po pe

. Th a t th e

pr os pe ct iv e juro r hi m se lf ha d a cri m in al hi st or y di d no t refl ect n e g a t i ve ly o n Po pe , gi ve n t he lac k o f an y

pri or ass oc ia ti on be twee n t he two

.

Po pe no w cl ai m s th at th e im pa ct of th e ve ni rem an ’s di sp ut ed rem ark s was

“ ev id en t in th e st ares an d gl an ces ” of ot he r pr os p e c t iv e juro rs , bu t th ere is no

ev id en ce of ho w ot he rs r e a c t ed

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t is in th e be st po si ti on to

ev al ua te whe th er co m

m en ts du rin g vo ir di re cau se d un fai r pr ejud ic e to a p a r t y

.

“ The re are co m

pe ll in g in st it ut io na l co ns id e r a t i o ns m il it at in g in fav or of ap pe ll at e
de fere n c e to th e tri al jud ge ’s ev al ua ti on of th e si gn ifi can ce of po ss ib le juro r bi as .”

Ari zo na v. W as hi ng to n , 43 4 U.S. 49 7, 51 3 (19 78 ). An ap pe ll at e co ur t cann ot se ns e

th e at m os ph ere of th e pr oc eed in gs fro m a co ld reco rd

, or ob se rv e th e de m ean or an d

res po ns e of pr os pe ct iv e juro rs

. Pen dl et on , 83 2 F

. 3 d at 94 3. The di st ric t co ur t

th ou gh t it su ffi ci en t to in st ru ct t he jury th at it m us t co ns id er on ly th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d du rin g tri al

, an d th at Po pe was pr es um ed in no cen t. Giv en th e at te nu at io n
be twee n th e pr os pe ct iv e juro r’s rem ark s an d th e de fen da nt

, an d th e de fere nc e du e to

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s as se ss m en t, we co nc lu de th at th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Po pe ne xt arg ue s th at a po li ce of fic er’s tri al te st im on y ab ou t Po pe ’s s i l e nc e

aft er po li ce arre st ed hi m vi ol at ed th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. He rel ie s on Doy le v. Ohi o , 42 6 U.S. 61 0 (1 97 6)

, whi ch he ld th at on ce po li ce pr ov id e a de fen da nt wit h warn in gs

pr es cri be d by Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

, in cl ud in g no ti ce of th e rig ht

to re mai n s i le nt

, th e pr os ecu ti on ’s us e of th e de fen da nt ’s po st -arr es t si le nc e to

im pe ach hi s t es ti m on y

at t ria l v io la te s t he Due P ro ces s C la us e. 42 6 U.S. at 61 9.

-4

-The of fic er in th is cas e te st ifi ed ab ou t th e se iz ur e of Po pe aft er he fle d fro m th e

gr een m in iv an

. W he n as ke d wha t he di d wit h Po pe , th e of fic er rep li ed : “ He’s be in g
de ta in ed fo r dr iv in g ch arg es , sp eci fic al ly, at th at po in t. I be li ev e he was Mi ran di zed

whe re he refu se d to sp eak wit h us

. He’s ob vi ou sl y de ta in ed in a cru is er at th at po in t.”

The pr os ecu to r th en cl ari fie d, “ W el l, wha t I’m as ki ng y ou is at so m e po in t are y ou th e

on e th at tra ns po rts hi m ? ”

Po pe di d no t ob

ject to th e of

fic er’s rem ark a t t r i a l

, bu t no w cl ai m s th at th e

te st im on y vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to du e pr o c e s s. Bec au se th ere was no ob jecti on , we

rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. To ga in rel ie f, Po pe m us t es ta bl is h th at th ere was an ob vi ou s

erro r th at affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y ,

or pu bl ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs

. Uni te d St at es v. Ola no , 5 07 U.S. 72 5,

73 5- 36 (19 93 ).

Po pe ’s cl ai m fai ls on at le as t two pr on gs of th e pl ai n- erro r an al y si s. Fi rs t, it is

no t “ ob vi ou s” th at th e of

fic er’s non -res po ns iv e an swe r, st at in g th at Po pe refu se d to

sp eak wit h po li ce at th e sc e n e of arre st

, vi ol at ed th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. “ [T]he

ho ld in g of Doy le is th at th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se ba rs ‘ th e u se fo r im pe ach m en t

p ur po se s’ of a de fen da nt ’s po st arre st si le nc e.” Gre er v. Mil le r , 48 3 U.S

. 7 5 6

, 7 6 3
(1 98 7) (q uo ti ng Doy le

, 42 6 U.S. at 61 9)

. Late r cas es es ta bl is h th at a su sp ect ’s si le nc e

aft er Mir a n d

a w a r n i n g s al so m ay no t be us ed as “ affi rm at iv e pr oo f” in a cri m in al

cas e. W ai nw ri gh t v. G r e e nf

ie ld

, 47 4 U.S. 28 4, 29 2 (1 98 6) ; Mat he ni a v. Delo

, 97 5

F.2 d 44 4, 45 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Bu t we ha ve de cl in ed to se t br ig ht -li ne ru le s fo r whe n

an in ad ve rte nt di sc lo su re of a de fen da nt ’s po st arre st si le nc e, or us e of si le nc e m erel y
fo r ex pl an at or y pu rp os es , vi ol at es th e ru le of Doy le

. Se e Dan sb y v. Hob bs

, 76 6 F.3 d

80 9, 82 0- 2 1 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at es v. Sw een ey , 6 11 F.3 d 45 9, 47 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). “ The li ne be twee n pe rm is si bl e refe ren ces to po st arre st si le nc e fo r ex pl an at or y

pu rp os e s a n d im

pe rm is si bl e br each es of th e im pl ie d Mir an da -warn in g pr om is e

. . .

m us t em erg e fro m cas e-b y- c a se ap pl ic at io ns of Doy le ov er a pe rio d of ti m e.”

Dan sb y , 76 6 F .3d at 8 21

.

-5

-So far as th e reco rd sh ows , th e of fic er’s di sc lo su re he re was no nr es po ns iv e an d

in ad ve rte nt

. The go ve rn m en t di d no t se ek to pr ov e an y fact in is su e by ad ve rti ng to

Po pe ’s si le nc e or to im

pe ach an y la te r te st im on y of Po pe

. The go ve rn m en t m ad e no

us e of th e fact in arg um en ts to th e jury or el se whe re in th e tr i a l

. Und er th os e
ci rcu m st an ces , th ere was no t an ob vi ou s vi ol at io n of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se th at th e
di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d h av e n ot ic ed wit ho ut ob jecti on

.

S e co nd

, an y vi ol at io n of th e ru le in Doy le di d no t affe ct Po pe ’s su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s. A pa rty ch al le ng in g a tri al erro r un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w m us t s ho w a

“ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ” th at

, ab se nt th e al le ge d erro r, th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g

wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t. Uni te d St at es v. Domi ng ue z Ben it ez , 54 2 U.S. 74

, 81 -8 2
(2 00 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Pop e can no t m eet th at bu rd en

.

The ev id en ce in su pp or t of th e jury’ s ve rd ic t was st ro ng

. DNA ev id en ce li nk ed

Po pe to a Smi t h & Wes so n .40 -cal ib er SD4 0VE ha nd gu n fo un d whe n Po pe was

arre st ed

. A m at ch in g Sm it h & W es so n .40 -cal ib er am m un it io n cl ip was se iz ed fro m

th e st ol en whi te car fo un d ne ar th e ab an do ne d tra ck in g de vi ce ta ke n at th e U.S. Ban k

ro bb ery. A co nt em

po ran eo us se arch of Po p e ’s br ot he r’s ho m e di sc ov ered a

W in ch es te r .40 -cal ib er am m un it io n bo x, w i t h a qu an ti ty m is si ng , an d a whi te

swe at sh irt co ns is te nt w i t h t h e g a rm en t wor n by on e of th e ro bb ers

. A wit ne ss sa w

two m en , m at ch in g t he de sc rip ti on of P op e an d h is acco m pl ic e, pa rk a whi te car o n

th e ni gh t of Aug us t 11 an d ge t in to a da rk gr een va n li ke th e ve hi cl e dr iv en by Po pe
be fo re h is arre st on Aug us t 1 4.

Two da y s aft er th e ro bb eri es , Po pe acco m pa ni ed hi s si st er whe n sh e pu rch as ed

a F o r d Ex pe di ti on wit h cas h th at in cl ud ed a ba it bi ll fro m th e U.S. Ban k ro bb e r y.

Late r, in a reco rd ed jail ho us e te le ph on e cal l, Po pe m ad e an in cri m in at in g ad m is si on :

“ I sh ou ld ha ve ne ve r bo ug ht th at m ot he rf* ck in g t ru ck .”

-6

-Po pe ’s ev id en ce at tri al di d li tt le t o un de rm in e th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e. He

cal le d on e wit ne ss who ha d ti pp ed po li ce th at an im ag e fro m su rv ei ll an ce fo ot ag e at

on e ro bb ery was a pe rs on ot he r th an Po pe or hi s acco m pl ic e. Bu t th e ti ps te r co ul d no t

ev en rem em

be r pr ov id in g th e i n f

o r m at io n, an d an in ve st ig at or te st ifi ed th at he

qu ic kl y eli m in at ed th e p ot en ti al su sp ect aft er d et erm in in g t ha t h e d id no t m at ch th e

pe rs on in th e su rv ei ll an ce im ag e. Giv en th e st ro ng ev id en ce of gu il t, Po pe can no t

de m on st rat e a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e po li ce of fic er’s pa ss in g co m

m en t ab ou t

hi s re fu sa l t o s pe ak at t he sce ne of t he arres t af fect ed hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s.

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed . We

de cl in e to ad dr es s Po pe ’s cl ai m of in effe c t i v e as si st an ce of co un se l in th e fir st

in st an ce, an d Po pe m ay pr es en t an y su ch cl ai m in a c o l la te ral pr oc eed in g un de r 28
U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Woo ds , 71 7 F .3d 65 4, 6 57 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-