United States v. Delgado
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18290
8th Cir.2011Background
- Delgado was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine (five kilograms or more) and multiple cocaine distribution, money laundering, and related conspiracy counts.
- Evidence showed a large-scale cocaine distribution scheme from 2002–2007 involving Chavez, Estrada, and several Kansas City conspirators.
- Wiretaps captured over forty conversations; several purchases of cocaine by undercover officers were recorded.
- A drug ledger with cash and nicknames was found in Estrada's vehicle; substantial cash seizures and real estate deals were introduced to prove money laundering.
- Money laundering involved four real estate transactions and use of cashier's checks, money orders, and cash to obscure proceeds and avoid reporting requirements.
- Delgado challenged the conviction as arising from a prejudicial variance between indictment and trial evidence; the district court affirmed the verdict and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain-error variance between indictment and evidence | Delgado | Government | No plain error; single overarching conspiracy proven |
| Sufficiency of evidence for cocaine distribution | Delgado | Government | Sufficient evidence supported distribution convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for money laundering and conspiracy to launder | Delgado | Government | Sufficient evidence of intent to conceal and to avoid reporting; conspiracy upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buckley, 525 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review standard)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error test: clear error, prejudice, affect on fairness)
- United States v. McGilberry, 620 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (single conspiracy can comprise multiple transactions)
- United States v. Hall, 171 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 1999) (spillover prejudice; compartmentalization of conspiracies)
- United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1992) (evidence may be partitioned; no prejudice from multiple conspiracies)
- United States v. Jones, 880 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1989) (minimal prejudice when multiple conspiracies exist)
- United States v. Maza, 93 F.3d 1390 (8th Cir. 1996) (overarching conspiracy concept; overlap among participants)
- United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy requires an agreement; may be inferred from actions)
- United States v. Bowman, 235 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2000) (intent to conceal may be inferred from transfer to related parties)
- United States v. Williams, 605 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2010) (structuring transactions to conceal illicit proceeds)
- United States v. Spencer, 592 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2010) (no requirement that the launderer reveal identity)
- United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2009) (overarching conspiracy with varying participants)
- United States v. McGilberry, 620 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (reaffirming single-conspiracy framework)