United States v. Crispin Herra-Herra
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11389
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Federal agents investigating a Mexico-based trafficking organization used vehicle and phone tracking to identify Crispin Herra-Herra's involvement in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy in Omaha.
- Herra-Herra arrived in Omaha in November 2014; surveillance placed him at a stash house where packaging paraphernalia and several pounds of methamphetamine were found buried in the backyard.
- On December 9, a co-conspirator left a house carrying a child’s backpack later found to contain about $169,000 in bundled cash; agents later found vacuum-sealing materials in Herra-Herra’s residence similar to materials used to pack the cash.
- Trial occurred February 16–18, 2016; after initial deliberations the jury asked what happens if they couldn’t reach a verdict. The district court first offered the parties a choice between an Allen charge or advising the jury the government could retry or dismiss; after some deadlock the court gave an Allen charge. The jury returned guilty the next morning.
- The PSR attributed 25.3 kg meth to Herra-Herra; the court held him responsible for 11.7 kg and set a Guidelines range of 151–188 months, sentencing him to 151 months (bottom of range).
Issues
| Issue | Herra-Herra's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Allen charge was impermissibly coercive | Court should have declared mistrial; Allen charge coerced verdict | Allen charge permissible; defendant did not properly object and charge was not coercive | Court affirmed: Allen charge not coercive under Walrath factors (content, post-charge deliberation ~3 hrs, total ~12 hrs, no other coercion) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy conviction | Evidence showed only association with traffickers, not knowing participation in conspiracy | Circumstantial evidence (stash house access, packaging cash, sealing materials, multiple phones) supports conviction | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy, knowledge, and participation |
| Substantive reasonableness of 151-month sentence | Sentence excessive; requested below-Guidelines sentence to mandatory minimum | Sentence within Guidelines; presumptively reasonable; no abuse of discretion | Affirmed: within-range sentence presumptively reasonable; defendant failed to rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walrath, 324 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2003) (sets factors to assess whether an Allen charge is coercive)
- United States v. Glauning, 211 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2000) (Allen charge not coercive where post-charge deliberation showed careful consideration)
- United States v. Whatley, 133 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 1998) (four hours post-Allen deliberation indicated deliberative, noncoercive decision)
- United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Ruiz-Zarate, 678 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of conspiracy conviction explained)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness of sentences)