United States v. Brian Lawrence
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9160
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Parole agents conducted an unannounced parole compliance check at Brian Lawrence’s residence; agents found a drawer in a hallway containing 492 grams of a cocaine mixture, drug paraphernalia, and $1,564; a locked safe in Lawrence’s bedroom contained $14,364.
- The drawer matched a nightstand in the bedroom Lawrence and his fiancée identified as theirs; the nightstand had mail and checks bearing Lawrence’s name; clothes and shoes matching Lawrence were found in the bedroom.
- Lawrence initially denied knowing the safe combination but later indicated the key’s location in his closet; agents recovered the key where he said it would be.
- A certified narcotics dog alerted to the currency; fingerprint testing yielded no usable prints on most items.
- Lawrence was acquitted of the firearms charge but convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine; he was sentenced under the Guidelines as a career offender to 262 months.
Issues
| Issue | Lawrence's Argument | Government's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and intent to distribute | Evidence was insufficient—no direct physical possession; conflicting witness accounts and lack of fingerprints create reasonable doubt | Circumstantial evidence (proximity, matching drawer, mail, clothing, safe access, large quantity, trafficking paraphernalia, large cash) supports constructive possession and distribution | Affirmed: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational jury could find constructive possession and intent to distribute |
| Admission of dog-sniff/currency contamination evidence | Dog alerts to currency are unreliable because much U.S. currency is commonly contaminated; should be excluded | Dog was properly trained; government used controlled, double-blind testing and showed probative value for recent contamination | Affirmed: dog-alert evidence admissible; probative under circuit precedent when methodology/qualification shown |
| Denial of mistrial for undisclosed oral statement (Rule 16) — reference to “two stacks” | Non-disclosure prejudiced defense; comment implied control/ownership and was untendered, warranting mistrial | Government disputed prejudice; court gave immediate curative instruction and struck the remark | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; curative instruction sufficed and error was not so prejudicial as to require mistrial |
| Jury instruction on possession (non‑pattern instruction, joint possession language) | Instruction was overly broad and misleading | Instruction accurately stated law on sole and joint possession and was necessary given testimony | Affirmed: instruction correct and not misleading when read as whole |
| Reasonableness of sentence (career-offender application) | Sentence excessive; court should have varied below Guidelines despite career-offender status | District court properly calculated Guidelines, considered §3553 factors, defendant’s serious/violent history justified enhancement | Affirmed: within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; district court exercised permissible discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Pereira, 783 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- U.S. v. Griffin, 684 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2012) (constructive-possession and substantial-connection rule in jointly-occupied residences)
- U.S. v. Reed, 744 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2014) (possession inference where drugs found in nightstand with defendant’s mail and personal effects)
- U.S. v. $30,670, 403 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2005) (canine alerts to currency can be probative if testing and training are shown)
- U.S. v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997) (earlier skepticism about currency contamination evidence)
- U.S. v. Thornton, 463 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding joint-possession instruction language)
- U.S. v. Moore, 572 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency and avoiding speculation)