United States v. Aaron Polk
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9892
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Polk was convicted by jury of one count of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 1,000+ marijuana plants under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), 846.
- Law enforcement found a large-scale grow operation at North 11th Street; basement rooms, lighting, ventilation, and a significant number of plants were seized.
- Polk had long-running rental dealings with Nguyen and Belton to house multiple grow operations, including N. 81st St. and Norman Circle, with cash rent and no formal leases.
- Polk arranged properties and finances to support Nguyen’s marijuana cultivation, including rent payments, ownership records, and utility accounts.
- Nguyen and Belton testified about Polk’s involvement in recruiting and coordinating cultivation activities.
- Polk later sought safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and was denied after the district court found he failed to truthfully disclose information about the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy | Polk did not agree to manufacture/distribute; participation was not shown | Polk joined conspiracy through aiding housing and payments | Sufficient evidence supports intentional joined conspiracy and foreseeability of 1,000+ plants |
| Discovery violation sanction | Government discovery breach prejudiced Polk | No discovery violation; timely disclosure | District court did not abuse discretion; no discovery violation |
| Cross-examination of cooperating witness | Should cross-examine Nguyen about 2006 recording | Limited cross-examination was proper due to marginal relevance | Court did not abuse discretion; limits were reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Safety-valve eligibility | Polk truthfully disclosed information; eligible | Polk failed to provide truthful information per prong five | Safety-valve relief denied; district court’s findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Espinoza, 684 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2012) (conspiracy participation may be inferred from evidence; no strict requirement of formal agreement)
- United States v. Rolon-Ramos, 502 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements of conspiracy includes knowledge and intentional joining)
- United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2007) (agreement to distribute drug held to exist by inference)