The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Preston Campbell for using a deadly weapon to assault a federal officer. This decision, filed on July 28, 2026, affects Campbell, who was sentenced to over ten years in prison, and highlights the legal standards surrounding the use of prior convictions in court. The ruling is significant for similar cases involving assaults on law enforcement officers.
The case, United States v. Campbell, No. 25-5065, stems from an incident in July 2024, when Deputy U.S. Marshals attempted to arrest Campbell on outstanding warrants. The deputies had received a tip that Campbell would be at a Dollar General store in Mannford, Oklahoma. When they arrived, they found a sedan that they believed contained Campbell. As they approached the vehicle, Campbell exited from the backseat, brushed past a deputy, and fled into the woods while holding a knife.
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including body camera footage from Deputy O’Connor, showing Campbell with the knife. The jury found Campbell guilty of assaulting Deputy O’Connor while using a deadly weapon, which increased his maximum sentence to 20 years. Ultimately, the district court sentenced him to 130 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
In his appeal, Campbell raised several arguments against his conviction, including a claim that the district court improperly allowed the government to use his prior felony convictions to impeach his credibility. However, the court ruled that since Campbell chose not to testify, he waived his right to challenge the pretrial ruling regarding the admissibility of his prior convictions.
The Tenth Circuit, led by Circuit Judge Ebel, concluded that Campbell's decision not to testify meant he could not contest the lower court's preliminary ruling. The opinion stated, "Because he did not testify, Campbell waived review of the district court’s preliminary pretrial ruling that the Government, under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1), could likely use five of Campbell’s prior convictions to impeach his testimony." This ruling is consistent with previous decisions that require a defendant to testify to preserve such claims.
Additionally, the court addressed Campbell's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence that he used a deadly weapon during the assault. The court found that the evidence, including video footage and witness testimony, supported the jury's conclusion that Campbell had actively used the knife to assault Deputy O’Connor. The court emphasized that the jury's interpretation of the evidence was reasonable.
The court also examined whether the prosecution made improper statements during closing arguments. Campbell claimed the prosecutor's comments emphasized moral judgments about his decisions to flee and assault the deputies. However, the court determined that these remarks were not plainly improper and did not affect Campbell's substantial rights.
Overall, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Campbell's conviction, stating, "For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Campbell’s conviction." This ruling reinforces the legal standards regarding the use of prior convictions and the requirements for preserving certain claims on appeal.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Campbell's case. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving assaults on law enforcement officers and the admissibility of prior convictions in court. The court's decision clarifies the importance of a defendant's choice to testify in relation to their ability to contest evidentiary rulings.
Looking ahead, Campbell's legal team may consider further appeals, but details on any pending actions were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the complexities involved in criminal trials and the legal standards that govern them.