United States v. Collins
2:24-cr-00028
E.D. Wis.May 6, 2025Background
- A grand jury indicted Qian Collins, Shannon Wilder, Maurice Hampton, Jr., Brianna Madden, and six others for a multi-year drug trafficking conspiracy and related firearms offenses.
- The conspiracy allegedly operated from at least July 2022 to February 2024, involving fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine, with evidence from controlled buys, searches, and surveillance.
- Key defendants are accused of direct drug sales, possessing firearms in furtherance of drug crimes, and maintaining drug premises; Madden operated a business allegedly used for trafficking and facilitated logistics.
- Law enforcement seized drugs, firearms, cash, and drug paraphernalia during searches of defendants’ residences and businesses, tying all to ongoing illegal activities.
- Multiple defendants filed pretrial motions, including to dismiss charges, for a bill of particulars, for severance, and to seal documents, arguing insufficient evidence and potential prejudice from joint trials.
- Other co-conspirators pled guilty or are expected to resolve their cases without trial, impacting arguments regarding joint trials and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bill of Particulars (Wilder) | Indictment and discovery provide sufficient detail | Entitled to detailed info on firearm count and witnesses | Denied; indictment and discovery sufficient |
| Motion to Dismiss Count 19 (Wilder) | Indictment adequately alleges elements | No evidence of firearm in furtherance of drug crime | Denied; sufficiency of evidence is for jury to decide |
| Motion for Severance (all) | Joint trial promotes efficiency; no actual prejudice shown | Prejudicial spillover; disparate evidence warrants separate trials | Denied; prejudice arguments insufficient, jury can compartmentalize |
| Motion for Severance (Sixth Amendment - Bruton) | No anticipated Bruton problem; moot as to resolving co-defendants | Risk of prejudicial co-defendant statements can’t be cross-examined | Denied without prejudice; issue depends on trial developments |
| Motion to Seal (Hampton) | Protective order permits sealing only for discovery | Entire motion and exhibits should be sealed due to sensitive info | Granted for exhibit only, denied for memoranda |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roman, 728 F.2d 846 (7th Cir. 1984) (bill of particulars to inform defendant of charge to prepare for trial)
- United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2013) (bill of particulars unnecessary if indictment or other disclosures are sufficient)
- United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2003) (district court’s discretion regarding bill of particulars)
- United States v. White, 610 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2010) (standards for assessing sufficiency of indictment)
- United States v. Marzano, 160 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1998) (joinder under Rule 8(b) for conspiracy cases)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (Sixth Amendment right regarding co-defendant statements)
- United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 1995) (limiting instructions can remedy prejudicial spillover)
- United States v. Freland, 141 F.3d 1223 (7th Cir. 1998) (jury instructions effectively mitigate prejudice from joint trials)