United States v. Carmen Haire
806 F.3d 991
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- DEA wiretaps of George Lee uncovered arrangements to ship cocaine and marijuana from Houston to St. Louis and other distributors; warrants obtained under Title III.
- After intercepted shipments and wiretapped calls, DEA learned Williams and others were transporting cash to Lee; one intercepted package contained 3 kg cocaine.
- Lee arranged to send Haire (Williams's uncle) from St. Louis to Houston carrying "sealed up" cash; Haire was stopped in Texas with $33,530 in vacuum-sealed bags and a backpack that alerted to narcotics odor.
- Searches of Lee's property later uncovered drugs, scales, chemicals, cash, and firearms; Lee and Haire were indicted on drug conspiracy and money-laundering charges; Lee faced an additional § 924(c) firearm charge.
- At trial the jury convicted Lee on all counts and Haire on the money-laundering conspiracy charge; both appealed challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instruction (Haire), and sufficiency of evidence (Haire).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of wiretap recordings | Lee: gov't failed to properly authenticate recordings under Fed. R. Evid. 901 | Gov't: DEA agent identified equipment, operators, preservation, and speakers; recordings unaltered and voluntary | Court: Admission proper; McMillan factors met and no abuse of discretion |
| Expert testimony interpreting drug jargon | Lee: Agent lacked expertise for case-specific phrases; testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 | Gov't: Agent qualified to explain drug jargon and code words on recordings | Court: Testimony appropriate; agent helped jury understand pervasive drug terminology |
| Admission of statements referencing cartels/Colombians | Lee: Evidence prejudicial and sought to prove guilt by association | Gov't: Statements were party-opponent admissions and relevant to participation in conspiracy | Court: Statements admissible non-hearsay and relevant; no undue prejudice |
| Cococonspirator statements & sufficiency for membership | Haire: Insufficient evidence he was a conspiracy member; challenged 801(d)(2)(E) admissions and Johnson's testimony | Gov't: Wiretap + Haire's trip, vacuum-sealed cash, prior role as intermediary, and testimony show membership and in-furtherance statements | Court: Preponderance supported admitting coconspirator statements; conviction and willful-blindness instruction upheld; evidence sufficient for money-laundering conspiracy conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henley, 766 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and McMillan-factor framework for wiretap authentication)
- United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974) (factors for admitting wiretap recordings)
- United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1996) (experts may explain drug jargon and codewords)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 1998) (content of coconspirator statements may be considered in determining admissibility)
- United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (willful blindness instruction standards)
- United States v. Elder, 682 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of § 1956 money-laundering conspiracy)
- United States v. Ragland, 555 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (statements identifying a conspirator's role admissible as in furtherance of the conspiracy)