Summary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Sam Sando’s convictions for attempted interference with commerce by robbery, attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The court upheld the exclusion of a state-court deposition and prior testimony, found any limitation on impeachment harmless, and declined to disturb the admission of domestic-assault evidence because Sando did not challenge the district court’s characterization of that evidence as intrinsic to the charged offenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Abalo's state-court deposition under Federal Rules of Evidence 806 and 403.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Williams's prior state-court testimony concerning an alleged message from Meyer about disposing of a gun under Rules 804(b)(3) and 613(b).
- Whether the district court plainly erred by excluding Williams's prior testimony as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting Sando's cross-examination of Detective Carter concerning an alleged prior inconsistent statement about Williams's truthfulness, and whether any error was harmless.
- Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of domestic-assault allegations involving Sando and Abalo under Rule 404(b).
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Abalo's deposition. Even assuming the deposition was admissible for impeachment under Rule 806, its admission remained subject to Rule 403, and the court reasonably found that its limited probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and related litigation of contradictory evidence.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Williams's testimony about an alleged message from Meyer concerning disposal of a gun because Meyer was not unavailable under Rule 804, and the alleged statement lacked corroborating circumstances clearly indicating trustworthiness.
- The district court committed no plain error in excluding Williams's prior testimony under the alternative Rule 801(d)(1)(A) theory because the proposed testimony about what Meyer told Williams was hearsay, and Sando did not establish the required inconsistency or admissibility of the embedded statement.
- Although the district court improperly limited Sando's ability to impeach Detective Carter with a prior inconsistent statement concerning whether Williams was lying, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
- The court declined to disturb the admission of evidence concerning domestic-assault allegations because the district court deemed the evidence intrinsic to the charged offenses and Sando did not challenge that specific ruling on appeal.
Key quotations
“We review his challenges for an abuse of discretion, and we “will reverse only when an improper evidentiary ruling affects the substantial rights of the defendant or when we believe that the error has had more than a slight influence on the verdict.”” (slip op. at 3)
“On this record, Sando’s inability to impeach Carter with a single inconsistent statement had no “more than a slight influence on the verdict.”” (slip op. at 8)
Factual background
Sando arranged to meet Andrew Meyer in connection with a purported marijuana transaction that Meyer intended to use as a scheme to sell fake marijuana. Later that day, Sando and his cousin Salifou Sahr approached a vehicle occupied by Meyer, Trishay Thompson, and Alena Williams with guns drawn and fired; Thompson was shot in the neck and later died. The federal trial concerned the robbery and drug-related conduct surrounding the shooting, as well as whether Sando was one of the shooters.
Procedural history
Sando was acquitted in state court of first-degree murder in May 2023. In March 2024, federal charges were filed; Count 1 was dismissed on the government's motion before trial, and the jury convicted Sando on Counts 2, 3, and 4. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the challenged evidentiary rulings and affirmed.