United States v. Edward Jefferson, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16098

Background

Jefferson pled guilty in Oct 2009 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Feb 2008).
In Feb 2010, Jefferson and four others were charged with conspiracy to distribute 5 kg+ of cocaine and Jefferson separately charged with using a communications facility.
After failing to appear, sentencing on the earlier case was delayed; a four-day trial in Jun 2011 led to Jefferson’s conspiracy and communication convictions;
At sentencing, the district court overruled Jefferson’s objection to the Probation Officer’s drug-quantity calculation, yielding an advisory range of 292-365 months, and imposed concurrent sentences of 240 months (possession), 240 months (conspiracy), and 48 months (communication).
Corredor, the conspirator and primary witness, testified Jefferson distributed 150 kg+ of cocaine; 33 recorded calls between Corredor and Jefferson were admitted; credibility issues were raised on appeal but the jury credited Corredor’s testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence	Jefferson argues insufficient evidence to prove knowing participation in a conspiracy over 5 kg.	Jefferson contends Corredor’s testimony alone was insufficient and unreliable.	Sufficient evidence; Corredor’s testimony and recorded calls support conspiracy verdict.
Drug-quantity determination for sentencing	Objected to 154 kg as unsupported; asserts error in relying on Corredor’s testimony.	Weak credibility of Corredor challenges; district court’s credibility call should be upheld.	No clear error; district court’s quantity finding supported by record and credibility assessments.
Constructive amendment or variance from indictment	Testimony about 2001/2003 sales improperly amended the charge or created a variance.	Evidence outside period should not have been admitted.	No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance; no plain error.
Jury cross-section	Panel’s racial composition and youth dynamics rendered jury non-representative.	No evidence of systematic exclusion; no denial of a fair cross-section.	No Sixth Amendment violation; no reversible error shown.
Allen charge and jury deliberations	Allen charge was premature and coercive.	No objection to instruction; waiver and discretion support propriety.	Waived or no plain error; no coercive effect shown.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Coleman, 525 F.3d 665 (8th Cir. 2008) (jury credibility deference to witnesses; ordinary review for credibility)
United States v. Thompson, 560 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2008) (credibility determinations virtually unreviewable on appeal)
United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for sentencing quantity reviews)
United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (clear-error standard for quantity findings in sentencing)
United States v. Novak, 217 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2000) (variance between indictment and proof; prejudice standard)
United States v. Begnaud, 783 F.2d 144 (8th Cir. 1986) (constructive-amendment principles)
United States v. Vieth, 397 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 404(b) decisions; evidentiary discretion)
United States v. Johnston, 353 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2003) (cautionary instruction for variance evidence)
United States v. Evans, 431 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (Allen charge; consideration of efficacy and coercion)
United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1983) (deliberation-evidence handling precedents)
United States v. Williams, 548 F.2d 228 (8th Cir. 1977) (deliberations and evidence replay discretion)
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (fair-cross-section requirement framework)
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1975) (jury pool cross-section constitutional baseline)
United States v. Sanchez, 156 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 1998) (fair-cross-section standard application)
United States v. Tripp, unpublished (8th Cir. 2010) (juror-cross-section considerations (unpublished))