108 F.4th 659
8th Cir.2024Background
- Darius and Baquan Sledge were convicted after a jury trial for their roles in a large-scale oxycodone distribution conspiracy in North Dakota, targeting several Native American reservations.
- Both were charged with five counts: drug conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and continuing criminal enterprise (CCE).
- The conspiracy involved transporting thousands of pills from Michigan, organizing local distributors, and collecting and laundering proceeds through various means.
- The Government presented extensive evidence, including text messages, photos, and video from a coconspirator’s phone, and testimony from dozens of witnesses.
- On appeal, Darius challenged the jury instructions for his CCE conviction, claiming lack of a required unanimity instruction, while Baquan contested multiple procedural and evidentiary rulings.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed Darius’s CCE conviction and remanded for a new trial on that count, remanded Baquan’s drug conspiracy conviction for potential vacatur as a lesser-included offense, but affirmed all other judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission of unanimity instruction for CCE | Darius: Jury needed to unanimously agree on which 3 felonies made up the CCE; omission is reversible | Govt: Instructions adequate; alternative instructions not properly objected to; error harmless | Held: Omission was plain error; reversed CCE conviction for Darius, new trial ordered |
| Admission of coconspirator phone evidence | Darius/Baquan: Admission violated Confrontation Clause & evidentiary rules | Govt: Evidence admissible under FRE 801(d)(2)(E); not testimonial; within established case law | Held: No error; evidence properly admitted |
| Claims of juror bias/misconduct | Darius/Baquan: Juror failed to disclose family overdose during voir dire | Govt: No dishonest answer; voir dire questions did not specifically elicit the information | Held: No error; district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial |
| Right to counsel & jail placement (Baquan) | Baquan: Placement far from counsel violated Sixth Amendment | Govt: No knowing government intrusion; no demonstrable prejudice or motive; move for logistical reasons | Held: No violation of right to counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (required jury unanimity on predicate acts for CCE charges)
- United States v. Lee, 687 F.3d 935 (explaining elements of CCE offense)
- United States v. Mayfield, 909 F.3d 956 (coconspirator statements non-testimonial, not violating Confrontation Clause)
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (test for juror dishonesty and bias on voir dire)