Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Cory Bradley
Citations: 473 F.3d 866; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 508; 2007 WL 63716Docket: 06-2810
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; January 11, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Cory Bradley was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to ninety-four months in prison. He appealed, claiming insufficient evidence to support the conviction, specifically arguing that the government failed to show he knowingly possessed the firearm. The incident leading to his arrest occurred on August 29, 2004, when St. Louis County police officer Chris Ormerod stopped a vehicle driven by Samella Hogan, who only had a learner's permit. While speaking with Hogan, Bradley leaned down and touched the floorboard, prompting Ormerod to investigate further. Ormerod asked Bradley to exit the vehicle, suspecting he was hiding something. During a pat-down, Ormerod discovered a plastic bag in Bradley's pocket and saw the handle of a gun on the floorboard. When Ormerod attempted to arrest him, Bradley resisted and fled on foot but was subdued with a taser. A loaded .38 caliber revolver was later found under the passenger seat. Following his arrest, Bradley was found with marijuana and crack cocaine, and it was confirmed that he had prior felony convictions. Bradley represented himself at trial after the court declined to appoint a fourth attorney. Despite his arguments that the government did not prove he knowingly possessed the firearm, the jury convicted him. On appeal, the court emphasized that it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and would only reverse the conviction if no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict. The government needed to demonstrate that Bradley had a prior conviction for a crime punishable by over one year of imprisonment, knowingly possessed a firearm, and that the firearm was part of interstate commerce. On appeal, Bradley contested only the second element—his knowing possession of the firearm. The government could establish this through actual or constructive possession, with constructive possession defined by ownership, dominion, or control over the firearm. This can be proven with circumstantial evidence, which is considered as valuable as direct evidence. Bradley contended that he lacked constructive possession because he did not control the vehicle driven by Hogan and argued that mere access or proximity to the firearm was insufficient. He noted the absence of his personal items in the vehicle, the lack of evidence regarding his ownership of the car, and that he was not its driver. However, physical proximity alone does not prove constructive possession; the jury could infer control since the firearm was found under his seat and in plain view. Testimony indicated that Bradley made movements suggesting attempts to hide the firearm. Additionally, the loaded gun and his resistance to arrest, including an attempt to flee, supported the inference of constructive possession. The court concluded that the evidence was adequate to uphold the jury's verdict regarding Bradley's constructive possession of the firearm, affirming the district court's judgment.