Co-Defendants' Drug Conspiracy Convictions Affirmed
U.S. v. Doddles, 2008 WL 4061054 (9/3/08) (Published) - There was sufficient evidence the defendant possessed ecstasy pills and a firearm found in another person's bedroom, [despite no evidence he had a gun or drugs on the date the firearm and drugs were found] in light of the defendant's access to that bedroom, his involvement in other drug transactions and shooting episodes, his membership in the gang that was connected to the pills and firearm, and his presence in the residence with the bedroom.
Any error in the prosecution's elicitation from various witnesses of testimony that the gang threatened the witnesses and the witnesses feared retaliation was not plain and did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Some of the testimony explained the witnesses' prior inconsistent statements and countered the defense's cross-examination. And , besides, the evidence was overwhelming.
Characterizations of the defendant's prior convictions as felonies when they were misdemeanors did not affect the defendant's substantial rights because a government witness later corrected the mischaracterization. The defendant's right to a fair trial was not compromised by a juror who raised concerns about the defendant having access to the jury list and alluded to the testimony about "significant repercussions." The juror said his concern was partly spurred by his wife, "an avid Court TV watcher," who had asked the juror about security precautions in federal cases. He assured the court he could be impartial.
U.S. v. Edwards, 2008 WL 4059785 (9/3/08) (Published) - The admission of the defendant's prior convictions for possession of personal-usage amounts of controlled substances was error. The evidence was irrelevant. The facts were not similar to those in this case regarding distribution and did not serve any 404(b) purpose. But the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence.
There was sufficient evidence to prove the co-defendant in the Doddles case was guilty of conspiracy to distribute drugs. There was evidence he helped to distribute drugs as a backup, was involved in a gunfight with other gang members and acted as the gang's muscle. There was sufficient evidence he possessed the pills and firearm in the bedroom for similar reasons that there was sufficient evidence against Mr. Doddles. There was also sufficient evidence the defendant was a user of controlled substances [illegally possessing a firearm], even though the evidence of his usage of drugs did not "pinpoint" precise dates. The jury could have reasonably concluded the defendant was smoking marijuana in a video. It can be assumed the witnesses were referring to the entire time period of the conspiracy. Because there was sufficient evidence of a temporal nexus between the firearm possession and the drug usage the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. It was not violative of Rule 403 to admit evidence of several 911 calls regarding the shootout.
It was not error to add criminal history points for convictions that resulted in deferred sentences. USSG ยง 4A1.1(c) does not limit the addition of one point to convictions that result in sentences of imprisonment.
Any error in the prosecution's elicitation from various witnesses of testimony that the gang threatened the witnesses and the witnesses feared retaliation was not plain and did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Some of the testimony explained the witnesses' prior inconsistent statements and countered the defense's cross-examination. And , besides, the evidence was overwhelming.
Characterizations of the defendant's prior convictions as felonies when they were misdemeanors did not affect the defendant's substantial rights because a government witness later corrected the mischaracterization. The defendant's right to a fair trial was not compromised by a juror who raised concerns about the defendant having access to the jury list and alluded to the testimony about "significant repercussions." The juror said his concern was partly spurred by his wife, "an avid Court TV watcher," who had asked the juror about security precautions in federal cases. He assured the court he could be impartial.
U.S. v. Edwards, 2008 WL 4059785 (9/3/08) (Published) - The admission of the defendant's prior convictions for possession of personal-usage amounts of controlled substances was error. The evidence was irrelevant. The facts were not similar to those in this case regarding distribution and did not serve any 404(b) purpose. But the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence.
There was sufficient evidence to prove the co-defendant in the Doddles case was guilty of conspiracy to distribute drugs. There was evidence he helped to distribute drugs as a backup, was involved in a gunfight with other gang members and acted as the gang's muscle. There was sufficient evidence he possessed the pills and firearm in the bedroom for similar reasons that there was sufficient evidence against Mr. Doddles. There was also sufficient evidence the defendant was a user of controlled substances [illegally possessing a firearm], even though the evidence of his usage of drugs did not "pinpoint" precise dates. The jury could have reasonably concluded the defendant was smoking marijuana in a video. It can be assumed the witnesses were referring to the entire time period of the conspiracy. Because there was sufficient evidence of a temporal nexus between the firearm possession and the drug usage the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. It was not violative of Rule 403 to admit evidence of several 911 calls regarding the shootout.
It was not error to add criminal history points for convictions that resulted in deferred sentences. USSG ยง 4A1.1(c) does not limit the addition of one point to convictions that result in sentences of imprisonment.
posted by Anonymous at 3:06 PM
<< Home