United States v. Donte Herring — 4th Cir. (Oct 29, 2026)

No. 24-4437 Argued October 29, 2026 Published October 30, 2026

The Fourth Circuit hears Herring's appeal from robbery and firearm convictions. In December 2020, armed robbers stole electronics and cash from two Maryland phone stores: a Verizon retailer and an AT&T retailer. A jury found Herring guilty of two Hobbs Act robberies and two charges of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The Hobbs Act makes robbery a federal crime when it affects interstate commerce—business across state lines. Herring will argue that prosecutors failed to prove that connection for each robbery. The government will contend that the stores' interstate operations and the stolen goods provided enough evidence. You'll also hear about Rules 701 and 702. Lay opinion testimony must rest on the witness's own perception and be helpful, rather than draw on specialized knowledge. Expert testimony requires appropriate qualifications and reliable methods. That distinction frames the dispute over police testimony about investigative practices. A harmless evidentiary error is one that did not substantially influence the verdict.

United States v. Donte Herring (No. 24-4437) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 29, 2026.

Sources

Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/24-4437-20261029.mp3

Argument date and panel — official Fourth Circuit calendar:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf

Prior district-court memorandum and order — July 23, 2024 (court text mirrored by Midpage):https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-herring-1000406497022

Background and trial verdict — U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland:https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/washington-dc-man-convicted-armed-robberies-two-phone-stores-maryland

Hobbs Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1951:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951

Firearm offenses — 18 U.S.C. § 924:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

Lay opinion testimony — Federal Rule of Evidence 701:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_701

Expert testimony — Federal Rule of Evidence 702:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702

Harmless error — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_52

Opinion-testimony and harmless-error standards — United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2010):https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/085098.P.pdf

0:00Introduction