United States v. Bruce Wayne Johnson

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bruce Wayne Johnson

614 F.2d 622, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20394

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1980

Docket79-1997

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 614 F.2d 622 (United States v. Bruce Wayne Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bruce Wayne Johnson, 614 F.2d 622, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20394 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction on three counts of illegal possession of firearms under 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and (i). The sole issue is whether the district court 1 erred in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion to strike testimony from the record and suppress evidence. We affirm.

The defendant concedes that a motion to suppress was not filed prior to trial as is required by Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 41 of Fed.R.Crim.P. Failure to file such a motion prior to trial constitutes a waiver of that defense. Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Crim.P. The defendant contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in denying him relief from the waiver. He argues that *623 inadvertence of counsel and/or the plain error doctrine are sufficient causes for the court to have granted the requested relief.

We disagree. It is apparent that, at the end of trial, the defendant changed his trial strategy (and added new counsel). At trial, his defense was to attack the sufficiency of the evidence. After trial, he attempted a defense strategy of suppressing the evidence. We cannot say, on this record, that the district court abused its discretion in holding that there was no good cause compelling it to grant relief of the waiver.

The district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin of the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction on three counts of illegal possession of firearms under 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and (i). The sole issue is whether the district court 1 erred in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion to strike testimony from the record and suppress evidence. We affirm.

The defendant concedes that a motion to suppress was not filed prior to trial as is required by Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 41 of Fed.R.Crim.P. Failure to file such a motion prior to trial constitutes a waiver of that defense. Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Crim.P. The defendant contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in denying him relief from the waiver. He argues that *623 inadvertence of counsel and/or the plain error doctrine are sufficient causes for the court to have granted the requested relief.

We disagree. It is apparent that, at the end of trial, the defendant changed his trial strategy (and added new counsel). At trial, his defense was to attack the sufficiency of the evidence. After trial, he attempted a defense strategy of suppressing the evidence. We cannot say, on this record, that the district court abused its discretion in holding that there was no good cause compelling it to grant relief of the waiver.

The district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin of the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 F.2d 622, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bruce-wayne-johnson-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack