## Facts

- Four military personnel were robbed at gunpoint by three men at Fort Chaffee, a U.S. military installation in Arkansas, on June 3, 1975, around 11:15 p.m.
- Victims promptly reported the robbery to military police and provided the license number and description of the assailants’ car.
- About 30 minutes later, military police found a 1956 Chevrolet on the base matching the reported license and description; it appeared abandoned with doors and windows open.
- An investigator saw, in plain view inside the car, a cardboard box labeled for a Titan .38 pistol and an Oklahoma Tire and Supply sales slip.
- Officers conducted a warrantless search and seized the box, sales slips (including some bearing “George S. Rogers” and “Sam Rogers”), bullets, an eyeglass case, a checkbook in “George S. Rogers,” and a photograph later identified as Rogers.
- Rogers was charged and convicted in federal district court of armed robbery on a U.S. military reservation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111 and 2, and sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010 et seq.
- A confederate, Walter Baker, had previously given an inculpatory statement to FBI agents, but at trial claimed inability to remember details and could not identify Rogers; the court permitted an FBI agent to recount Baker’s prior statement and to read an unsigned, unsworn transcript, instructing the jury it was admitted only to impeach Baker.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless search and seizure from the abandoned vehicle on a closed military base violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether denial of defense discovery requests seeking criminal records of government witnesses was reversible error.
3. Whether a prosecutor’s comment warranted a mistrial.
4. Whether admitting a confederate’s prior statement through an FBI agent and an unsigned, unsworn transcript, ostensibly for impeachment only, violated hearsay rules or the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the warrantless vehicle search was lawful under exigent circumstances and the automobile-search doctrine, with additional support from the closed military-base setting and the officers’ prior plain-view observations.
- The court found no reversible error in denying discovery of criminal records of government witnesses.
- The court held the prosecutor’s comment did not justify a mistrial given the context and lack of sufficient prejudice.
- The court upheld admission of Baker’s prior statement for impeachment only, concluding Baker’s claimed memory loss could be treated as inconsistent with his earlier detailed account and that limiting instructions addressed the non-substantive use; because Baker testified and was subject to cross-examination, confrontation requirements were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless search of an automobile may be reasonable when officers have timely, specific information linking the vehicle to a serious offense, the vehicle’s condition creates a risk of removal or tampering, and incriminating items are observed in plain view; these considerations can be reinforced by the security context of a closed military installation.
- For impeachment, “inconsistency” is not limited to direct contradictions; a witness’s asserted lack of memory may qualify as inconsistent with a prior detailed statement.
- A prior out-of-court statement used solely to impeach a testifying witness, coupled with a limiting instruction, may be admitted without being treated as substantive proof; juries are generally presumed to follow limiting instructions.
- The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when the declarant appears at trial and is subject to cross-examination, even if the declarant claims memory loss, where the statement is admitted for credibility assessment rather than as substantive evidence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Rogers’s armed-robbery conviction, upholding a warrantless search of an abandoned vehicle on a closed military base and permitting use of a confederate’s prior statement to impeach his claimed memory loss at trial, with limiting instructions and opportunity for cross-examination satisfying evidentiary and confrontation requirements.


United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490 (8th Cir. 1976)