United States v. Barret
677 F. App'x 21
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants Christopher Barret (convicted leader), Leon Scarlett, and Omar Mitchell appealed convictions after a jury trial in the Eastern District of New York for offenses including CCE (21 U.S.C. § 848), conspiracy to distribute >1,000 kg marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846), maintaining a stash house (21 U.S.C. §§ 856/846), distribution of ~100 kg on Oct. 7, 2010 (21 U.S.C. § 841), and a § 924(c) firearms enhancement.
- Prosecution evidence included cooperating-witness testimony identifying Barret as the leader, surveillance and searches of Barret’s Jamaica, Queens residence, repeated parcel shipments from Arizona containing marijuana, and remnants/large quantities of marijuana recovered during an October 7, 2010 raid.
- Cooperating witnesses (Melbert Palmer, Kareem Forrest) placed Scarlett at the stash house frequently, described him picking up ~1–2 kg shipments regularly, selling for Barret, and participating in pickups and collections.
- Mitchell was convicted on the conspiracy count; attribution of drug quantity to Mitchell and some evidentiary issues were addressed in a separate, concurrently issued opinion.
- Appellants challenged sufficiency of the evidence (particularly the >1,000 kg conspiracy as to Barret and Scarlett), and the district court’s admission of prior-bad-act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (including leadership evidence, firearm convictions, and text messages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Barret and Scarlett conspired to distribute >1,000 kg marijuana | Govt: cooperating witnesses, surveillance, repeated Arizona shipments, and nearly 100 kg found on Oct. 7 support reasonable foreseeability of >1,000 kg | Barret/Scarlett: evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy quantity element beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: a rational juror could find conspiracy, knowledge, intentional joining, and reasonable foreseeability of >1,000 kg (Jackson standard) |
| 404(b) admission of Barret’s leadership in “Fatherless Crew,” 2003 firearm conviction, and threatening texts | Govt: prior acts show relationships, knowledge, intent, access to firearms, and development of co-conspirator relationships | Barret: admission was improper tendency evidence and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: evidence was admissible for knowledge, intent, absence of mistake, and relation-building; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| 404(b) admission of Scarlett’s 2004 weapons conviction | Govt: conviction probative of access to firearms and absence of mistake | Scarlett: prejudicial character evidence | Affirmed: relevant to knowledge/absence of mistake and admissible under Rule 404(b) |
| Admission of Mitchell-related text messages about receipt of narcotics from Arizona supplier | Govt: texts relevant to Mitchell’s intent, knowledge, and membership in conspiracy | Mitchell: texts were improper propensity evidence and prejudicial | Affirmed: texts relevant to intent/knowledge; admissible given Mitchell’s defense that he was not part of the conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for upholding jury verdict when any rational trier of fact could convict)
- United States v. Morgan, 385 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2004) (deference in conspiracy cases due to secretive nature)
- United States v. Santos, 541 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2008) (elements required to sustain § 846 conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2006) (drug-quantity element and reasonable foreseeability for co-conspirators)
- United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002) (inclusionary approach to Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1992) (Rule 404(b) permitting evidence for non-propensity purposes)
- United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice balancing under Rule 404(b))
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (standards for admitting prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2009) (prior firearm sales admissible to show knowledge and intent)
- United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1992) (weapons evidence probative of knowledge and absence of mistake)
- United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1982) (evidence of access to firearms admissible)