United States v. Derrick Adams
666 F. App'x 858
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Derrick Adams was indicted (Jan 1, 2013–Oct 7, 2014) for conspiracy to distribute ≥280 grams of cocaine base and cocaine with Anthony Wyatt, Mary Davis, and others.
- Trial evidence: Wyatt testified he regularly bought cocaine base from Adams (May–July 2014) intending to resell; several witnesses and an out-of-state supplier testified Adams purchased large quantities of cocaine base from the supplier during 2013–early 2014.
- The supplier testified he sold over 1,000 grams to Adams, sold at Adams’s residence, and knew Wyatt from seeing him with Adams.
- At the close of the government’s case Adams moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the government proved only ~160 grams and relied improperly on a separate, unindicted conspiracy with the supplier to reach the 280‑gram threshold.
- The district court denied the motion, finding a reasonable jury could have concluded Adams’s dealings with both Wyatt and the supplier were part of the same conspiracy; Adams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment charging a single conspiracy was materially varied at trial by proof of multiple conspiracies (affecting quantity attribution) | Adams: Govt relied on an unindicted, separate conspiracy (with out‑of‑state supplier) to attribute enough drug quantity to meet the 280‑gram threshold | Govt: Evidence supports a single, continuous conspiracy (2013–2014) linking Adams, the supplier, and Wyatt; Adams acted as a central “key man” facilitating purchases, transport, and sales | Affirmed. No material variance; viewing evidence in govt’s favor a rational juror could find a single conspiracy and attribute quantity accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (variance from single‑conspiracy indictment reversible only if material and substantially prejudicial; jury’s single‑conspiracy finding reviewed for substantial evidence)
- United States v. Alred, 144 F.3d 1405 (11th Cir. 1998) (government need only show conspirators had a common purpose to violate the law; conspirators need not participate in every stage)
- United States v. Richardson, 532 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2008) (single conspiracy may be divisible into sub‑agreements; overlap and common purpose control)
- United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1986) (central hub or “key man” theory supports finding of single conspiracy)
- United States v. Thompson, 610 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review: de novo review whether district court erred in denying judgment of acquittal)