United States v. Donald Turner, Jr.
781 F.3d 374
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Investigation in spring 2010 by the DEA and Sikeston, Missouri police into a local drug-distribution conspiracy.
- Joe Lenzie Turner and associates (including Corey Turner, Sr.; Donald Turner, Jr.; Antonio Turner) are alleged to distribute cocaine in Sikeston area.
- August 18, 2011: a 21-count indictment charging conspiracy to distribute cocaine and substantive drug offenses; seventeen individuals charged; several pled guilty or cooperated.
- Corey Turner, Donald Turner, and Antonio Turner proceeded to trial on a seven-count superseding indictment with cooperating witnesses Joe Turner and Dorsey.
- Jury convicted the three Turners of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and of substantive drug offenses; appeal challenged suppression rulings, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency, and sentences.
- The panel affirms the convictions and sentences on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge PLI warrants | Corey Turner asserts standing to challenge PLI warrants for Joe Turner’s and Woods’ phones. | Government contends Corey lacks a reasonable privacy interest in those phones. | Corey lacks standing; suppression denied on the merits for lack of standing. |
| Necessity for wiretap orders | Donald Turner argues the necessity shows wiretaps were unsupported. | Government shows traditional methods insufficient to reveal full conspiracy; necessity satisfied. | District court’s necessity finding not clearly erroneous; wiretaps sustained. |
| Rule 41 procedures under the Combination Order | Corey Turner argues PLI lacked a stand-alone Rule 41 warrant and improper procedures. | Government contends Rule 41 requirements largely satisfied; some defects but not prejudicial. | Rule 41 violations did not prejudice the defense; exclusionary remedy not warranted. |
| Lay opinion interpreting coded drug terms | Turners challenge Dorsey’s lay interpretation of drug jargon. | Government used Dorsey’s interpretations to clarify testimony. | Admissible as lay opinion; error, if any, harmless in light of other evidence. |
| Admission of prior convictions under Rule 404(b) | Prior drug convictions admitted to show propensity; not sufficiently tied to intent/knowledge. | Probative value of prior convictions for intent/knowledge supported; prejudicial risk mitigated by other evidence. | Harmless error; substantial other evidence supported conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castellanos, 608 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2010) (review of suppression rulings; standard of review emphasized)
- United States v. West, 589 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2009) (necessity of wiretaps; necessity standard)
- United States v. Shaw, 94 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 1996) (necessity and alternatives to wiretaps; district court findings upheld)
- United States v. Barajas, 710 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2013) (combination orders and multi-search warrants permissible; related law)
- United States v. Gabrio, 295 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2002) (probable cause for warrants; Rule 41 considerations)
- United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2014) (standing to challenge searches; privacy expectations in phones)
- United States v. Pierson, 544 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 404(b) admissibility standards; balancing probative value and prejudice)
- United States v. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1988) (principles for Rule 404(b) analysis (propensity vs. other purposes))
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability for crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy)