HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/audio/106494/?format=api",
"id": 106494,
"absolute_url": "/audio/106494/united-states-v-candace-milner/",
"panel": [],
"docket": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74774215/?format=api",
"date_created": "2026-09-22T14:37:25.275199-07:00",
"date_modified": "2026-09-22T14:41:09.803926-07:00",
"source": "C",
"case_name_short": "",
"case_name": "United States v. Candace Milner",
"case_name_full": "",
"judges": "",
"sha1": "fa31f2b07fe2da1912c181566346b01ae56f025d",
"download_url": "https://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2026/9/253151.MP3",
"local_path_mp3": "mp3/2026/09/22/united_states_v._candace_milner_cl.mp3",
"local_path_original_file": "mp3/2026/09/22/united_states_v._candace_milner.mp3",
"filepath_ia": "",
"ia_upload_failure_count": null,
"duration": 1288,
"processing_complete": true,
"date_blocked": null,
"blocked": false,
"stt_status": 1,
"stt_source": 1,
"stt_transcript": "25-3151 from the Eastern District of Arkansas, United States v. Candace Milner All right, Ms. Talley, we'll hear from you first. Good morning. My name is Sylvia Talley and I represent the appellate Candace Milner. In August 2023, a confidential source or informant allegedly informed Little Rock Narcotics Detective Christopher Hernandez and Ms. Milner of selling narcotics. Based off that tip, law enforcement started investigating Ms. Milner and surveilling her home. They did so for about five days, but they didn't see any activity indicative of drug trafficking. On August 16, 2023, while surveilling her house, law enforcement asked a C.I. to call Ms. Milner to arrange a drug deal. The C.I. supposedly did so, and sometime later, Ms. Milner left her house with the two Hispanic men that she identified as Chuy and Chury. Not long after the three left the house and drove away, a Little Rock police officer conducted a traffic stop in Ms. Milner's vehicle. He did so because he was informed that he needs to find a reason to stop her because she was under investigation for narcotics. When the officer approached her car, Ms. Milner handed the officer two drugs. Not long after, other law enforcement officers arrived at the scene, and when they arrived, Ms. Milner told them there were more drugs at the house, and she took them to the house and collected them. When they arrived to the house, Ms. Milner led them to the back bedroom. Well, I think it was the middle bedroom. They had a padlock mechanism on the door, and she showed them where they could find the drugs and the firearm underneath the mattress. Subsequently, Ms. Milner was felonly charged and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession of milk with intent to deliver, and possession of firearms and others of job-trafficking crimes. The main issues on appeal is whether the admission of the C.I.'s tip that Ms. Milner was selling drugs violated Ms. Milner's right to confrontation. The other issues raised is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain her conviction and whether the government's improper comments during closing arguments deprived Ms. Milner of the right to a fair trial. As to the confrontation clause violation, the government claims that the C.I.'s, well, the government claims that the officer's testimony, the C.I.'s tip that Ms. Milner, well, the government claims that the officer's testimony that they started investigating Ms. Milner because a confidential informant told them that she was selling narcotics was not for the truth that the matter asserted, but to explain the propriety of the investigation. Ms. Milner maintains that she did not challenge the propriety of the investigation, so the admission of the C.I.'s tip is not warranted, but has she? Isn't she arguing that, you know, the other two folks in the car were the ones that were controlling her and making her do it? Yes. So isn't the tip relevant to explain why the singled her out and so the other two guys? No, I'll get to that. As to those testimony, the government said that they obviously explained the propriety of the investigation, why she was pulled over and arrested, but parts of the tip being admitted, the officer who conducted the traffic stop said he pulled her over for defective taillight and unconfirmed insurance, I believe, and he did so because he was told to find a reason to stop her because she was under investigation for narcotics. I think that testimony alone is sufficient to provide any background information as to why Ms. Milner was pulled over and arrested. So the record belies the government's claim that the C.I. tip was needed to prove why Ms. Milner was pulled over and arrested. It was clearly all for the truth of the matter asserted. Wasn't the jury instructed to the contrary? Yes, they were instructed that they can only consider this evidence for the limited purpose. Yes, for the limited purpose of whether... Go ahead. Well, doesn't that eliminate any confrontation clause problem? And any error, therefore, would just be an evidentiary error, such as a Rule 403 problem or something like that. Why would it be a confrontation clause if the jury was specifically instructed not to consider it for the truth of the matter? Go ahead. I'm sorry for picking up on and interrupting you. Well, I was kind of halting in my question, so I understand. Go ahead. As this Court recently recognized in Simpson, in that case, there was an alternate theory, well, alternate narrative of why the officers conducted the traffic stop in the way they did. I believe in that case, they received a tip that the defendant was in possession of a firearm. So during the traffic stop, they came to the vehicle drunk, guns blazing, and making commands. The defendant offered two alternative narratives or basis of building a background information as to why the T.I.'s tip that he was possessing firearms was not warranted. One alternative was to offer part of the video, the traffic stop video, and show that the defendant was digging around so they could explain why the officers approached the vehicle the way they did. And the other alternative was to omit the whole video. And in that case, this Court found that it violated the confrontation calls to omit the T.I.'s tip, even though the Court gave the same limited instruction that the Court gave here, that the T.I.'s tip was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but just to explain basically the propriety of the investigation. What was the rationale? I believe the rationale in Simpson was the main issue in that case was knowing possession, whether the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, which was found in, I believe, his wife or his girlfriend's purse. And the Court said since Simpson, since in that case, the tip spoke definitively to that element, that even the jury instruction incurred any prejudice. I can give you the site if you would like it. Is it in your brief? It's not in my brief, no, sorry. It came out after my brief. Oh, well, why don't you send us a letter? Will do, AJ. I will do that. Thank you. Okay. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, Ms. Milner's, as to the sufficiency of the evidence, Ms. Milner maintains that she did not exercise dominion or control over the bedroom where the map was found. According to Ms. Milner's testimony, truly and surely, they took control of her home. They converted her bedroom, and they forced her to sleep on the couch. They also put a lock on the bedroom door. In the video, the body cam footage of the officers walking into the home with Ms. Milner, doesn't she describe the bedroom as hers? Doesn't she use the words, my bedroom? Yes, I believe she does use the words, my bedroom, but it is technically her bedroom, but according to Ms. Milner, truly and surely, took control of that bedroom, and they were the ones who put the padlock. It's also a padlock shown on the video, well, padlock mechanism on the door. According to Ms. Milner, truly and surely, put that padlock there to keep her out, so she was sleeping on the couch. What's the error of the district court on that point? Wouldn't this be something for the jury to make conclusions about as to credibility? That is correct. I think it's logical to assume that since they did find her guilty, that they didn't find all of her testimony credible, but we don't know actually what they did find credible or not. I'm trying to think of a scenario where they could find her believable, credible, and convict her. I think just basically, it's her house. It's in her lease. She knew the drugs were there, but the jury think based off that, that that was constructive possession, joint constructive possession, even though she says truly and surely, those were her drugs. They took her room. Those were their firearms, and she only knew where they were because she saw them stored in there. I think based off the constructive possession instruction, a jury could make that conclusion even if they believed her, but we know as this court held in Ramos in joint occupancy cases, if the jury believed her, this would be a joint occupancy case. In joint occupancy cases, mere dominion over the premises is not sufficient. There must be additional evidence they can defend it to the contraband. In Ramos, this court held that the jury could not find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant possessed a firearm that was found underneath a mattress in a bedroom. Even though the defendant was out there at the residence, there was nothing showing that he exercised dominion or control over that bedroom. But Ms. Milner presented all these arguments to the jury, and they still convicted her, right? That is correct, Your Honor. So what evidence was insufficient? Assuming they did believe her, it would be insufficient. But if they didn't believe her, which I can see that logically, if they convicted her, they didn't believe her. That would be. So if they didn't believe her, it's insufficiency of the evidence. If they did believe her, it's insufficiency of the evidence. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your argument. Ms. Bowen, we'll hear from you. May it please the court? My name is Ashley Bowen, and I represent the United States in the case of United States v. Candace Milner. Counsel, could you pull that mic down? I can't. In fact, I may move this if that helps. Is this any better? Yes. Okay. Would you like me to start over? This court should affirm for three reasons. First, there was sufficient evidence to convict Ms. Milner, where there was credible officer testimony as well as corroborating video footage in the form of body camera. Additionally, the district court did not air or abuse its discretion by allowing limited testimony concerning the CI tip, where it was not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the propriety of the investigation, where Milner attacked propriety, and the district court immediately followed it with a limiting instruction. Was the propriety of the investigation put at issue? It was, Your Honor. I would argue that from very beginning of the case and opening statements, the defense stated, you're going to learn about an additional two individuals who are present in that car stop who are the actual real drug dealers and had taken advantage of Milner and had taken over her house and used it to set up shop. That's on page 327 of the transcript. Additionally, during the cross of Officer Nelson, defense counsel asked questions about why Milner was pulled out of the vehicle as opposed to allowed to remain in her vehicle while her information was being checked. If there was any actual concrete evidence that anyone had seen her doing any drug dealing. Additionally, during Detective Shishler's testimony, there were whether the evidence in this case of drugs in the guns were submitted for DNA or fingerprint testing and if any officers had actually seen her dealing drugs. So, Your Honor, I would argue that in that situation, from opening statement, defense theory of this case was always that Ms. Milner didn't have the ability to control or exercise dominion over the drugs in the firearms in this case because she was locked out of her room by Cheery and Chewy. So she was challenging why she was pulled over and why all this investigation was into her when these two men in the back seat were the ones that were taking over her home. At that point, it became necessary for Officer Hernandez to then testify that he did in fact receive a CI tip stating that Milner was selling narcotics at that home. And Your Honor, as the court previously pointed out, there was a limiting instruction that was immediately read afterwards that was fashioned, I believe, after the Brooks case. Your Honor, on that point, in the defense's argument, they relied heavily on the Holmes case. And in the Holmes case, it was a different situation. In that case, the defendant was not claiming impropriety of the investigation but was in fact saying, I didn't reside in that residence. In both the Shores and the Brooks cases, on the contrary, there was an attack as to the propriety of the evidence in the case and therefore that CI tip was appropriate. Additionally, in the Holmes case, what struck me is that there were entire paragraphs that were read from the search warrant affidavit that contained many statements that were made by the CI. In this case, there was one simple statement that was made and it was immediately followed with that limiting instruction. Senators, I would argue that in this situation, it is absolutely more akin to the Shores and Brooks cases as opposed to the Holmes case that decided in the defendant's brief. What about this Simpson case? Are you familiar with it? Your Honor, I'm not familiar. It was not in the briefing. However, just listening to Ms. Talley... Well, go ahead if you want, but I think it'll be more useful if you read the case. I would like to. The one thing I noticed... If she files a letter, you may respond, of course. Thank you, Your Honor. I would note that the one thing I noticed was that the gun was found in the wife's purse. In this case, this was clearly a situation where Milner owned the residence or leased the residence. She was on the lease agreement. She consented to a search of her home. She led officers directly back to what she identified in the video as her room. It was open and unlocked, and she knew exactly where the firearms were, that they were loaded, and that they were next to 66 grams of methamphetamine. If the court has any other questions about that particular issue, I'd be happy to discuss a CI tip. Otherwise, I would move on to the prosecutorial misconduct claims. Your Honor, in Miller's brief, she argues that the prosecutor made improper statements and that it deprived Milner of a fair trial. One of the things that the court, the U.S. Supreme Court, said in United States v. Young is that you can't view a prosecutor's statement standing alone. They must be viewed basically in context, in the context of which they were said. That also includes the defense counsel's statements in closing arguments. In this particular case, during closing argument, the defense stated, as to Officer Nelson, he chose to lie to you all. When he started lying, I tried to ask him additional questions so he could back off that lie. That's on page 785. As to Detective Shishler, he stated, when he thought it was going to hurt their case, he was willing to sit on that stand after he rose his hand and swore to tell the truth and still lie to you all. That's page 788-89. Additionally, during closing arguments, the defense said that Milner was open and honest a total of four different times, and that his client was telling the truth. Your Honor, in rebuttal argument, the prosecutor started talking about the different scenarios. Essentially, you can believe the government's version of the events, you can believe Ms. Milner's version of the events, or you can believe some hybrid where there is a joint occupancy. In this case, he stated that Milner gave a say anything defense when she testified to try to get out of trouble. However, in looking at the context, he immediately followed it by reading the credibility instruction, ultimately leaving the determination of credibility with the jurors in this case. I would argue that that is more akin to the Contento's case, where the court found that the prosecutor's arguments were not improper, and that they were an interpretation of the evidence that ultimately left the conclusion of credibility with the jury. Additionally, as to the blaming Cheery and Chewy defense, the prosecutor stated this was a scapegoat, cop-out, blame-these-two-guys situation. That's what she's trying to do. Her testimony wasn't credible on the stand. However, he immediately followed that by saying, you make that determination when you get back there. Remember, in Vordire, we talked about it. It's not really what I say in argument, it's all about what you heard from the witness stand and the exhibits in front of you. That's page 806. Your Honor, while he did say that Milner absolutely lied on the stand, he immediately followed it in the same breath with, you decide her credibility about what she said on the stand. That's on page 800. Your Honor should argue that in looking at the entire context of the closing arguments and the statements that were made, that this was an interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, and it always left the determination of credibility with the jurors in this case. Additionally, both the prosecutor and the court reminded the jury that closing arguments are not evidence in the case. It's what they heard in the witness stand, and it's the plain air. No, Your Honor. Those particular statements about Milner's, if you're speaking as to Milner's credibility. Well, those, but also the others. Are there any to which there were some? The only objection that was made at the trial was the statement about having a firearm registered in Milner's name, and whether that meant the firearms that were found under the mattress, which they were discussing, or some other firearm. So there was an objection to that, during closing arguments. The other issues were not objected to at the trial court level, so they would be subject to a plain air analysis. Did the prosecutor say at one point, it's a real problem because she absolutely lied on the stand? He did say that, Your Honor, but he immediately said, you decide her credibility about what she said. And therefore what? Therefore it's okay to make the first statement because it was qualified in some way? Your Honor, no, that it's not okay to make the statement. However, when viewed in context, as the Young case says, that the entirety of that context is I'm arguing a personal interpretation of the evidence, much like the Eagle case, but ultimately you decide that for yourselves. If there are any other questions on that point, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll move to sufficiency. Your Honors, there was sufficient evidence in this case to support Milner's convictions. The evidence that came in at trial was that she was under investigation for distributing narcotics, that the officers, the detectives in this case, were conducting surveillance at her house. When the investigation somewhat stalled because she wasn't leaving, they called an individual to order up narcotics from Ms. Milner. Thereafter, she left her residence in her vehicle and she was pulled over by Officer Nelson for a busted taillight and unconfirmed insurance. At that point, she immediately handed Officer Nelson a baggie of marijuana as well as 17 grams of methamphetamine in the baggie. Additionally, when he searched her purse, he found a large wad of cash in her purse that was separate from her wallet. After that, when she was transported back to her residence, she gave consent to search the residence where she was a leaseholder. She led officers directly to her room, which she described as her room, where she pointed out two loaded firearms as well as 66 grams of methamphetamine that were right next to each other in her room. Additionally, there was evidence that she wanted to cooperate with the officers in this case. She talked about buying from AK in the video and there was credible expert testimony. I apologize, Your Honor, I see my time's up. Would you like me to finish my statement or I can sit down? Thank you for your argument. Thank you, I appreciate it. Did Ms. Talley use her time? Yes. All right, very well. Thank you both for your arguments. The case is submitted and the court will file a decision in due course. Thank you, Your Honor. Counsel are excused."
}