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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 12 42

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

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.

Ju st in R. Bic ke t

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: Decem

be r 11 , 20 12
Fil ed : J an ua ry

30 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury fo un d Ju st in Bi ck et gu il ty of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bi ck et to si xt y -fi ve 1

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Neb ras ka

.m on th s of im pr is on m en t. Bi ck et ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on , ch al le ng in g th e su ffi ci en cy

of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on an d arg ui ng th e di st ric t co u r t a b u se d it s
di sc ret io n i n l im it in g t he sco pe of h is cro ss ex am in at io n. We affi rm

.

Bi ck et was arre st ed by two m em be rs of th e Met ro Om ah a Fu gi ti ve Task Fo rce
who wer e e n f

o r c i n g a fel on y warra nt fo r Bi ck et 's arre st

. The arre st oc cu rred aft er

Bi ck et fle d hi s res id en ce in a whi te se da n wit h th e of fic ers in pu rs u i t

, d r o v e t o an

ap art m en t co m

pl ex , an d en te red a pi ck up dr iv en by a fri en d. The of fic ers st op pe d th e pi ck up , se arch ed it

, an d fo un d a red sh oe bo x on th e fro nt pa ss en ge r flo or bo ard wit h

two lo ad ed fir earm s in si de

. Bi ck et 's DNA was fo un d on bo th weap on s in su bs eq ue nt

DNA te st in g of th e gr ip

, ha m m er, tri gg er an d sa fet y of each fir earm

. A fed eral gr an d
ju ry in di ct ed Bi ck et wit h on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir e a r m i n
vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He ex erci se d hi s rig ht to a jury tr ia l, st ip ul at in g

to hi s s ta tu s as a fel on

.

To pr ov e Bi ck et po ss es se d t h e two fir earm s, th e go ve rn m en t cal le d Bi ck et 's
gi rlf rie nd as a wit ne ss

. On th e da y of Bi ck et 's arre st

, hi s gi rlf rie nd sa w Bi ck et si tt in g

on hi s be d wit h a red sh oe bo x in hi s la p, wip in g do wn two fir earm s wit h hi s sh irt

. Bi ck et th en le ft hi s r e s i d e n c e a nd dr ov e away in a whi te se da n. Bi ck et 's gi rlf rie nd

fu rth er te st ifi ed sh e h a d s e e n th e two fir earm s in th e red sh oe bo x ab ou t a m on th

be fo re, whi le sh e was cl ean in g th e be dr oo m cl os et

. The go ve rn m en t al so cal le d th e pi ck up 's dr iv er. He sa w Bi ck et en te r th e ap art m en t co m pl ex pa r k i ng lo t in a whi te

se da n, ret rie ve a red sh oe bo x fro m it s tru nk

, th e n a p p r o a c h an d en te r th e pi ck up
whi le ask in g t o b e d riv en away . In add it io n, th e two arre st in g o ffi cers to ld th e jury

th ey fo un d th e two fir earm s in si de th e red sh oe bo x on t he pa ss en ge r si de of th e pi ck up 's fl oo rb oa rd , and th at Bic ke t had be en se at ed on th e pi ck up 's p as se ng er s id e

pr io r to hi s arre st

. Fi na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced th e ev id en ce of Bi ck et 's DNA

on th e two fir earm s.

-2

-At tri al

, Bi ck et arg ue d hi s DNA ha d b e e n tra ns ferr ed on to th e fir earm s fro m

on e o f th e two off

ic ers du rin g t he arre st . B ic ke t cal le d a n e xp ert who op in ed th at a

se co nd ary tra ns fer of DNA was po ss ib le th ro ug h th e swe at of an arre st in g of fic er. On

cro ss ex am in at io n, th e ex pe rt ad m it te d th e po ss ib il it y of a se co nd ary tra ns fer was le ss

li ke ly be cau se of th e sn ow a n d co ld weat he r pr es en t at th e ti m e of th e arre st

, th e
lo cat io n of th e fir earm s in si de a cl os ed sh oe bo x, an d th e fact t h a t t h e o f fic er who

se cu red th e fir earm s (u si ng la te x gl ov es ) ne ve r cam e in to co nt act wit h Bi ck et du rin g

th e arre st

. The go ve rn m en t als o recal le d it s DNA ex pe rt, wh o tes ti fie d a se co nd ary

tra ns fer was un li ke ly pr im ari ly be cau s e of th e in te ns it y of Bi ck et 's DNA on bo th

fir earm s i n m

ul ti pl e p la ces

.

To su pp or t hi s cl ai m , ho wev er, Bi ck et as ke d qu es ti on s to sh ow DNA sa m pl es

ha d no t be en ta ke n fro m th e ot he r pe op le p r e s e n t a t th e ti m e of th e arre st (th e two

of fic ers an d th e pi ck up dr iv er). Bi ck et 's co un se l as ke d on e of fic er whe th er a DNA

sa m pl e h ad be en co ll ect ed fro m hi m , and he an swe red no

. Tria l cou ns el al so as ke d

th e sa m e of

fic er whe th er he kn ew if a DNA sa m pl e ha d be en ta ke n fro m th e ot he r

of fic er or th e pi ck up dr iv er , a n d h e a n swe red no

. Dur in g cro ss ex am in at io n of th e pi ck up dr iv er, Bi ck et 's tri al co un se l as ke d th e dr iv er whe th er he ha d su pp li ed a DNA

sa m pl e. The g o v e r n men t ob jecte d, an d th e di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d th e ob jecti on

. S i mi la rly, du rin g th e cro ss ex am in at io n of th e go ve rn m en t's DNA ex pe rt, Bi ck et ' s

tri al co un se l as ke d hi m whe th er he ha d co m pa red DNA sa m

pl es fro m ei th er of th e

arr e s t i ng of

fic ers , or fro m th e pi ck up dr iv er, to th e DNA pr of il es fo un d on th e

fir earm s. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d. The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d th e ob jecti on

. Afte r

co ns id eri ng al l th e ev id en ce, the jury fo un d Bi ck et gu il ty. He fil ed a ti m el y ap pe al

.

W e rev ie w Bi ck et 's ch al le ng e to th e su ffi c i e n c y of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d gi vi ng th e ve rd ic t

th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 68 8 F.3 d 49 4, 50 2
(8 th Cir . 20 12 ). In s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m , B ic ke t m erel y co nt en ds bo th hi s g irl fri en d

an d hi s fri en d (th e pi ck up dr iv er) la ck ed cred ib il it y

. Thi s arg um en t is un av ai li ng in

-3

-th e co nt ex t of a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t h e e v i d e n c e

. The te st im on y of th e

two wit ne ss es , i f acce pt ed by the jury, was s uf fic ie nt to pro ve Bic ke t po ss es se d th e

two fir earm s, an d i t was up to th e jury to a ss es s cr ed ib il it y . See i d.

Bi ck et al so co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by li m i t i n g th e

sc op e of hi s cro ss ex am in at io n wit h res pe ct to whe th er DNA sa m pl es ot he r th an hi s

own ha d be en co ll ect ed or an al y zed

. Rev ie win g th is cl ai m fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n,

U n i te d St at es v. Hol y Bu ll

, 61 3 F.3 d 87 1, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), we fin d no ne

. Th e
di st ric t cou rt co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th e qu es ti on po se d to th e pi ck up dr iv er abo ut hi s

DNA was irr el ev an t be cau se th e pr es en ce of th e dr iv er's DNA on th e fir earm s wou ld

ha ve on ly sh own th e po ss ib il it y of joi nt po ss es si on , bu t wou ld no t ha ve ne ga te d th e

go ve rn m en t's ov erwh el m in g pr oo f of Bi ck et 's own po ss es si on

. See Uni te d St at es v.
Si an is

, 27 5 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (in di cat in g th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t pr ov e

ex cl us iv e po ss es si on of a fir earm to pr ov e a vi ol at io n of § 92 2( g) (1 )). In ad di ti on , th e

qu es ti on po se d to th e go ve rn m en t's DNA ex pe rt ab ou t ot he r sa m pl es was cu m

ul at iv e,
be cau se Bi ck et 's co un se l ha d al read y es ta bl is he d th ro ug h on e of th e arre st in g of fic ers

th at no DNA sa m

pl es ot he r th an Bi ck et 's ha d be en co ll ect ed or an al y zed

. Fi na ll y , th e

ev id en ce th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d th ro ug h th e gi rlf rie nd

, th e pi ck

up dr iv er, an d th e

two arre st in g of

fic ers was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Bick et wit ho ut ev en co ns id eri ng th e

DNA ev id en ce. Thu s, an y ev id en ti ar y e r r o r s wit h res pe ct to th e cu m ul at iv e DNA

ev id en ce wo ul d h av e b een ha rm le ss in an y ev en t. See Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on

.

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

-4

-