United States v. Elsa Solis, 915 F.3d 1172

DEA investigated a methamphetamine trafficking ring; Elsa Solis owned one of four surveilled houses and several vehicles used by the ring.
Solis lived with boyfriend Ivan Pedraza and his brother Fredy (the meth “cook”); agents observed package deliveries, controlled buys, surveillance of trips to sell drugs, and intercepted calls linking Solis to drug activity.
On a trip to Dallas, agents intercepted communications about a large meth purchase; on return, a traffic stop and consented vehicle search of Solis’s car uncovered $19,000 and 2.5 kg of meth hidden in children’s car seats and additional cash in her purse and home.
Solis was indicted on: Count 1—conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; Count 2—possession with intent to distribute; Count 3—misprision of a felony (failure to report).
At trial the district court refused Solis’s proposed “mere presence” jury instruction; the jury convicted on all counts. Court sentenced Solis to concurrent terms totaling 235 months for drug offenses and 36 months for misprision.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed Counts 1 and 2, reversed Count 3 (misprision) on Fifth Amendment grounds, and upheld denial of the requested instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Solis)	Defendant's Argument (Govt)	Held
Sufficiency—conspiracy (Count 1)	Evidence fails to show she intentionally joined conspiracy	Evidence of ownership/use of house and vehicles, purchasing acetone, trip to Dallas, and storing drugs/money shows intentional participation	Affirmed—reasonable jury could find she joined conspiracy
Sufficiency—possession with intent (Count 2)	No nexus showing she knowingly possessed meth in children’s car seats	Constructive possession established by knowledge of stash, control of vehicle, access to car seats, and carrying proceeds	Affirmed—constructive possession and intent support conviction
Misprision—Fifth Amendment (Count 3)	Misprision conviction violates Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination	Govt prosecuted misprision based on same conduct proving conspiracy and concealment	Reversed—plain error; Hoffman principle bars using misprision to compel or punish nonreporting when reporting would self-incriminate
Jury instruction—"mere presence"	Requested instruction clarifying mere presence/association insufficient to establish possession	Court’s instructions on conspiracy, possession, and that presence/association alone not enough adequately covered requested point	Affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; instructions as a whole were adequate

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (privilege covers answers that would "forge links" to prosecution)
United States v. Ramos, 852 F.3d 747 (8th Cir.) (joint-occupation alone insufficient for constructive possession)
United States v. Johnson, 18 F.3d 641 (8th Cir.) (constructive possession requires nexus of knowledge and control)
United States v. Bolden, 368 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir.) (misprision requires affirmative steps to conceal)
United States v. King, 402 F.2d 694 (9th Cir.) (Fifth Amendment bars misprision conviction where reporting could lead to defendant’s prosecution)
United States v. Kuh, 541 F.2d 672 (7th Cir.) (dismissal where defendants simultaneously involved in underlying crime and could reasonably fear self-incrimination)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (standards for plain-error review)
United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 480 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.) (discussing tension between misprision duty and Fifth Amendment)