Opinion ID: 6337086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lumpkin’s Arrest and Trial

Text: The events leading to Lumpkin’s arrest and eventual conviction began on July 16, 2014, when the Tomah Police Department arrested Stacey Suiter as she attempted to purchase heroin from a police informant. Following her arrest, Suiter eventually told an investigating officer that in addition to attempting to purchase drugs from the informant, she had purchased heroin from someone she knew as “Snoop” earlier that day in Sparta, Wisconsin. She told the detective that she had purchased three “points,” or 0.3 grams, of heroin for $50 each. Suiter explained that her friend, Kelly Scott Larkin, had wanted the heroin but did not have a connection to a dealer, so Suiter and Larkin traveled to Sparta to meet up with Suiter’s connection, Snoop. No. 21-1610 3 Suiter then brought a detective to Sparta and showed him where she had met with Snoop to complete the transaction. Upon returning to the police station, Suiter identified petitioner, James L. Lumpkin, as Snoop from a photograph lineup but changed her story regarding the amount of heroin she had purchased from him. Instead of three, she stated that she had actually purchased six points of heroin, which, she explained, she and Larkin divided equally. Suiter consented to a search of her residence, where she told police they would find six points of heroin if Larkin had not yet picked up his half. A detective then began a video-recorded interview with Suiter, starting the questioning by stating, “[T]here’s a lot of inconsistencies here that you’re leaving out.” Suiter responded, “What can I possibly do to get out tonight?” and then shortly thereafter reiterated, “I will do anything to get out tonight…. Did you hear me?” Suiter then explained the deal she had worked out with Larkin: For a total of $200 provided by Larkin, the pair would get six points of heroin from Lumpkin, and Suiter would keep three as her fee for arranging the transaction. Suiter assured the interviewing detective that there would be three points in the motel room where she was staying, as she had not used any heroin since the purchase. She also volunteered that the $300 to $400 of cash in her motel room was her rent money—not proceeds from drug sales. After a short break, the detective returned to the interview room and told Suiter that officers had only uncovered two points of heroin from her motel room. Suiter expressed some confusion but after a long pause admitted that she had, in fact, used one of the points of heroin earlier that day. 4 No. 21-1610 Officers then executed a search warrant on Lumpkin’s trailer and, during a pat-down of Lumpkin outside, found in his pants pockets 3.1 grams (equivalent to thirty-one points) of heroin, 2.1 grams of cocaine, 1.6 grams of marijuana, and $1104 in small bills. The heroin was divided into twenty-two knotted plastic bags (one with a full gram and twenty-one with 0.1 grams), the cocaine was divided into four such bags, and the marijuana into two. Lumpkin was charged with five counts: (1) possession with intent to deliver cocaine, (2) possession with intent to deliver heroin, (3) delivery of heroin, (4) possession of cocaine, and (5) possession of THC. Lumpkin pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial on all five counts. Five months before she testified at Lumpkin’s trial, Suiter pleaded no contest to three crimes. The court entered convictions on two but withheld conviction on the third pursuant to a deferred entry of judgment. At trial, the state first introduced testimony recounting the physical evidence discovered from Lumpkin’s person and trailer at the time of his arrest. One officer present during the search testified that, based on his experience and training, the drugs’ packaging was consistent with how drugs are typically packaged for sale on the street. That officer also testified about text messages and call records between Suiter and Lumpkin found on Suiter’s phone. On the day that Suiter and Larkin had traveled to Sparta to meet up with Lumpkin, Suiter and Lumpkin had exchanged calls shortly after 11:00 AM. About an hour later, Suiter then texted Lumpkin, “300 so full,” to which Lumpkin responded, “Cool.” Five minutes later, Suiter texted Lumpkin again, “Almost to Sugarberry,” the road on which Lumpkin’s trailer was located. No. 21-1610 5 Then Stacey Suiter took the stand. She testified that she had purchased a full gram (equivalent to ten points) of heroin from Lumpkin on the day in question, contradicting her earlier statements to police that she had only purchased three or six points. She explained that the text, “300 so full,” which she had sent to Lumpkin, meant that Larkin had given her $300 and that, in exchange for that amount, she wanted to purchase a full gram from Lumpkin. Suiter explained that Larkin kept seven points of heroin from the purchase and Suiter received three, one of which she immediately used. On cross-examination, Suiter admitted that the police promised her she wouldn’t be charged if she let them search her motel room. Lumpkin’s attorney then attempted to ask whether there was anyone else present in the motel room at the time of the search, to which Suiter responded, “My two kids.” After an objection and sidebar, Lumpkin’s attorney withdrew the question. He did, however, get Suiter to admit that she had “turned … a profit” on the purchase she made on behalf of Larkin. Defense counsel’s cross-examination of Suiter lasted less than five minutes, including the short sidebar. On re-direct, Suiter described herself as a “runner” for purchasers without connections to a dealer and stated that she worked with two or three dealers at any given time. Larkin then testified that he had driven Suiter to Sparta on July 16, 2014, so that the two of them could purchase heroin. He testified that he did not know Lumpkin and denied that he drove Suiter to a trailer park. He could not remember how much heroin they purchased that day, and when asked whether he received seven points, he responded, “I don’t think I have ever seen that much.” He admitted, however, 6 No. 21-1610 that he was taking “[p]robably two or three” doses of heroin a day at that time, which affected his memory. A friend of Lumpkin, Jamie West, then testified that she had been around Lumpkin frequently (more than 100 times) in the year before his arrest. She stated that she was aware that he frequently carried large amounts of cash, though she was not aware of his having a job during the time she knew him. Finally, a detective testified about recorded phone calls Lumpkin had made from jail after his arrest. In one such call, Lumpkin and a male on the other end of the line speculated that it must have been Suiter that had set him up, because she had come to see him the day he was arrested. In another call, Lumpkin described the amount of drugs he had been caught with, saying, “I ain’t had shit.” The male on the other end responded, “That was still too much though to get caught in your pocket.” Lumpkin elected not to testify, and the defense called no witnesses. In his closing argument, Lumpkin’s attorney attacked Suiter’s credibility, saying: Who’s the biggest witness, the star of the show? Stacey Suiter. She is the one who says she bought…. I can tell you this much. The term for a person who takes money and delivers drugs in exchange for that money is a dealer. Straight out. It can’t be denied. It can’t be argued. She took [Larkin’s] money. She came back with the goods. And to say that she is a user, but it is okay. I just kept some of it, that’s my reward. No. 21-1610 7 She is a dealer. That’s how she gets her drugs. You give me money, I show up with the goods. What I am not sure of is why she was going to see Mr. Lumpkin? Based on the facts, it is just as probable she went there to make a sale as she went there to make a buy. And finally, as far as my opinion of Ms. Suiter, she is storing drugs in her residence, which was a motel room, while her kids were there. I have very little faith in an- ything Stacey Suiter says. She clearly would be self-serving, she clearly would say anything she believes other people want to hear so she can cut a better deal herself. The jury convicted Lumpkin on four of the five counts, finding him not guilty only on the possession of cocaine count.