United States v. Daniel Blue
808 F.3d 226
4th Cir.2015Background
- Blue challenged Counts 2 and 3 (possession with intent to distribute 100g+ heroin) and Count 1 (conspiracy to distribute 100g+ heroin); district court denied suppression and judgment of acquittal; verdicts: guilty on Counts 1 and 3, not guilty on Count 2; new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence filed and remanded; on remand, district court denied it; on appeal, court reverses Counts 1 and 3 due to insufficiency of evidence; GPS suppression issue withdrawn as conceded post- Stephens decision; evidence showed 108.6g heroin in a Footstool in the Fox Hall Apartment but lacking nexus to Blue; trial centered on Blue’s actions around June–July 2011 and a 2011 search of the Apartment; no evidence tying Blue to Townsend’s 50g sale or to the Apartment occupants.
- Blue’s proximity to the Apartment and a key to the Apartment, plus a 5-minute visit, were insufficient to prove constructive possession of 108.6g heroin found in the footstool.
- Government’s stash-house theory and use of Blue’s false statements during interview were insufficient to prove dominion and control over the heroin.
- Court concludes the jury could not reasonably infer that Blue conspired with others to distribute 100g+ heroin, given lack of knowledge of the 108.6g in the footstool and lack of nexus to any co-conspirators.
- Court reverses Counts 1 and 3 and does not reach the new-trial denial issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 3 (100g+ heroin) | Blue constructively possessed the 108.6g in the footstool. | No nexus tying Blue to the Apartment occupants or drugs; mere presence or possession of a key is insufficient. | Insufficient evidence; reversed Count 3. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 1 (conspiracy to distribute 100g+ heroin) | Blue conspired with Townsend/Holt to distribute 100g+ heroin. | No proof Blue knew about the 108.6g or had relationships linking him to co-conspirators. | Insufficient evidence; reversed Count 1. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bell, 954 F.2d 232 (4th Cir. 1992) (constructive possession requires knowledge and dominion/control over contraband)
- United States v. Morrison, 991 F.2d 112 (4th Cir. 1993) (joint occupancy requires nexus linking defendant to contraband)
- United States v. Brett, 872 F.2d 1369 (8th Cir. 1989) (holder of a key is not by itself constructive possession; context matters)
- United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2014) (reaffirms limits on Brett’s broad statement; dominion and knowledge required)
- United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000) (analysis of probable cause, not suppression standard at issue here)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013) (probable cause standard—flexible probability not strict beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662 (4th Cir. 2001) (consciousness of guilt evidence may support probable cause or flight inference)
- United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 2010) (vacate conspiracy conviction for greater offense; indicate need for lesser-included analysis)
- Thornton v. Texas, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (judgment reformation limited to circumstances where lesser offense can be proven from facts actually found)