Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Robert Gafford
Date: 08-15-2025
Case Number: 1:22-cr-00087
Judge: Matthew T. Schelp
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Cape Girardeau
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Cape Girardeau Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Robert Gafford was hired by the United States Postal Service as a rural mail
carrier in 2015. He was assigned to deliver mail in Scott County, Missouri, along a
rural route that included the home of Karen and Doug Ressel.
In the summer of 2021, the Ressels noticed that anticipated mail did not arrive
at their mailbox. They initially thought the failed deliveries were caused by
construction on the county road where they lived. But after the road construction was
completed in November, the problem of missing mail continued.
The Ressels inquired with the postmaster and with a customer service
supervisor, Dustin Redden, about why they were not receiving their mail. Redden
met with Gafford to discuss the undelivered mail. Gafford said that he believed it
was unsafe to deliver mail to the Ressels' mailbox. Redden explained to Gafford that
the Ressels' mailbox was an established delivery location and gave Gafford "direct
orders to deliver the mail.â€
The problem of undelivered mail continued. Beginning in November, Redden
met with Gafford weekly and directed him to deliver to the Ressels' mailbox. By late
February 2022, the weekly meetings turned into daily meetings. Gafford continued
to assert that the mailbox was in an unsafe location and that he could not deliver to
the mailbox. So Redden personally inspected the Ressels' mailbox and determined
that delivery was safe. Redden also contacted Gafford's union representative to
examine the location of the mailbox; the union representative likewise concluded that
delivery was safe.
The Ressels undertook two measures to determine what was happening to their
mail. In March, Karen signed up for a free service offered by the United States Postal
Service called "Informed Delivery.†The service sent e-mails to Karen notifying her
about what items were scheduled for delivery that day. Karen forwarded the e-mails
to Redden.
In early April, Karen used an Apple AirTag to track pieces of test mail. The
Apple AirTag is a global positioning system tracking device that allows a user to
track on her phone where the AirTag is located. Karen conducted a "test run†by
placing the AirTag inside an envelope and mailing it to her brother-in-law's
residence. The envelope was delivered; on her phone, Karen could see that the
AirTag was located at her brother-in-law's home.
After retrieving the AirTag, Karen placed the device in an envelope addressed
to her own residence and mailed it. She informed Redden about the plan, and he
confirmed that the post office received her test mail. Karen tracked the test mail to
an unknown address. Redden then determined that the address was Gafford's
residence.
Special Agent Becker of the Postal Service began investigating Gafford's
conduct in March 2022. Becker had been informed of Karen's test using the Apple
AirTag. He sent a "test piece†of mail addressed to the Ressel residence with a
transmitter device that Becker could use to locate the item with a receiver.
On April 12, Agent Becker coordinated with the postmaster to place the
envelope with the transmitter device into Gafford's mail tray for delivery. The tray
included two other pieces of mail for delivery to the Ressels. Karen received an e-
mail notification through Informed Delivery that she was scheduled to receive three
pieces of mail.
That morning, Agent Becker observed Gafford drive a mail delivery truck
around the post office's parking lot and stop near Gafford's personal vehicle. Becker
saw Gafford exit the mail truck and stand next to his personal vehicle for over a
minute. Gafford then reentered the mail truck and left on his delivery route. Becker
and two other agents followed Gafford throughout the day in unmarked vehicles. The
postmaster notified Becker that the Ressels did not receive their mail. Becker
checked the Ressels' mailbox and did not find any mail inside.
Agent Becker returned to the post office, and the transmitter emitted a signal.
Post office staff searched the post office and could not locate the mail. Another agent
took the receiver and stood next to Gafford's vehicle. The agent received a strong
signal from the transmitter.
After Gafford finished his route, he returned to the post office and entered his
personal vehicle. Gafford drove away, and the agents followed. The agents
continued to receive a signal from the transmitter. The agents then conducted an
investigatory stop and discovered in Gafford's glove compartment the envelope with
the transmitter and the two other pieces of mail that were addressed to the Ressels.
A grand jury charged Gafford with delay of mail, see 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a), and
embezzlement of mail, see id. § 1709. At trial, the jury found Gafford guilty on both
counts. The court sentenced Gafford to fourteen months' imprisonment on each
count, to run concurrently.
imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Affirmed
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Robert Gafford?
The outcome was: The district court* sentenced Gafford to fourteen months’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. Affirmed
Which court heard United States of America v. Robert Gafford?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau County), MO. The presiding judge was Matthew T. Schelp.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Robert Gafford?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Cape Girardeau. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Cape Girardeau Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Robert Gafford decided?
This case was decided on August 15, 2025.