United States v. Adrian Dunn
723 F.3d 919
8th Cir.2013Background
- Five defendants (Dunn, Miles, Westbrook, Moore, Charles) convicted after a five‑day jury trial for conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine; three defendants also convicted for using a communications facility. Sentences ranged from 151 to 262 months.
- Primary government evidence: cooperating co‑conspirator Alejandro Corredor’s testimony (plea agreement) and numerous wiretapped calls from Corredor’s phone identifying defendants and drug transactions.
- Government disclosed several witnesses and proffer materials shortly before trial; defendants moved to exclude or for mistrial based on lateness and incomplete proffers. District court denied exclusion/mistrial and provided limited relief (time to prepare).
- Multiple pretrial and sentencing motions: suppression of wiretap evidence and search/seizure items (including $41,000), challenges to sentencing enhancements (weapon, prior felony drug conviction, drug‑quantity attribution), and forfeiture procedure disputes.
- On appeal, defendants raised sufficiency of evidence, disclosure and Brady arguments, evidentiary rulings, Confrontation Clause and cross‑examination limits, jury instructions (lesser included offense), and Alleyne implications. Court affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions | Gov: Corredor’s testimony, recorded calls, and agent testimony suffice | Dunn/Moore/Charles: Convictions rest solely on unreliable cooperator; no direct law‑enforcement observation | Affirmed—corroborated cooperator testimony and recordings sufficient; credibility for jury. |
| Late disclosure of witnesses/proffers | Gov: provided proffers one week before trial; no bad faith; continuance declined | Dunn/Westbrook/Charles: Late disclosure prejudiced trial; request to exclude or mistrial | Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; defendants showed no substantial prejudice; trial counsel given time; disclosure occurred before trial end. |
| Wiretap extension, notice, and admissibility | Gov: initial wiretap valid; extension listing Dunn permissible; transcripts provided | Dunn: extension lacked probable cause; §2518(8)(d) notice requirement violated; calls misidentified at suppression stage | Affirmed—no plain error; naming a target on extension not prohibited; actual notice received within 90 days; identification/reliability for jury. |
| Search of attached garage/vehicle and $41,000 seizure | Gov: warrant for residence includes attached garage and vehicle not noticeably separate | Dunn: garage/vehicle outside warrant scope; he merely owned property; suppress cash | Affirmed—attached garage and vehicle included in warrant scope; officers properly searched and seized cash. |
| Sentencing enhancements (weapon, prior felony, drug‑quantity) | Gov: enhancements supported by possession of guns on premises, prior felony conviction, and jury’s 5 kg finding | Dunn/Miles: not proven connection of weapon to offense; prior conviction not qualifying; Miles: lesser quantity instruction needed post‑Alleyne | Affirmed—district court did not clearly err on weapon constructive possession; prior Missouri felony qualifies; jury found 5 kg so Alleyne issue not violated and no timely lesser‑included request. |
| Confrontation/cross‑examination limits | Defendants: limited cross of agents regarding government’s earlier non‑prosecution of Corredor violated confrontation and impeachment rights | Gov: relevance limited; court allowed reasonable cross; credibility still attacked | Affirmed—court did not abuse discretion; additional inquiry would not have produced materially different impression on credibility. |
| Prosecutor rebuttal closing argument | Gov: rebuttal noted many recordings existed and only samples were played | Westbrook: argument implied unpresented evidence bolstering case; sought new trial | Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; remark referred to recordings in evidence and reasonable response to defense argument. |
| Forfeiture procedure and administrative forfeiture | Dunn: court failed to resolve whether jury demand required before disposing of listed property; due process violation | Gov: civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. §983; property administratively forfeited | No plain error—issue untimely raised; district court directed Dunn to pursue civil §983 relief; court did not err in closing criminal case without sua sponte action. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Huggans, 650 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir.) (sufficiency standard for conspiracy)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.) (sufficiency review standard)
- United States v. Coleman, 525 F.3d 665 (8th Cir.) (upholding convictions based on cooperator testimony)
- United States v. Sandoval‑Rodriguez, 452 F.3d 984 (8th Cir.) (late witness disclosure remedial standard)
- United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.) (prejudice requirement for discovery violation)
- United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (Sup. Ct.) (wiretap statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Davis, 882 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir.) (§2518 notice and prejudice)
- United States v. Martin, 599 F.2d 880 (9th Cir.) (naming targets on extension)
- United States v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir.) (harmlessness of certain grand jury/testimony issues)
- United States v. Payne, 81 F.3d 759 (8th Cir.) (constructive possession and weapon enhancement)
- United States v. Moore, 212 F.3d 441 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for weapon enhancement)
- United States v. Davis, 417 F.3d 909 (8th Cir.) (prior conviction qualification for statutory enhancement)
- United States v. Jones, 559 F.3d 831 (8th Cir.) (application of prior felony for enhancement)
- United States v. Gregoire, 638 F.3d 962 (8th Cir.) (forfeiture procedure and jury determination)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct.) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- United States v. Meeks, 639 F.3d 522 (8th Cir.) (lesser‑included instruction standard)
- United States v. Turner, 603 F.3d 468 (8th Cir.) (sentencing drug quantity findings pre‑Alleyne)
- United States v. Barrera, 628 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir.) (abuse of discretion in closing argument review)
- United States v. Gardner, 396 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.) (context in evaluating prosecutor remarks)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecutorial argument standards)
- United States v. Walley, 567 F.3d 354 (8th Cir.) (limits on cross‑examination review)
- United States v. Brown, 110 F.3d 605 (8th Cir.) (Sixth Amendment cross‑examination scope)