United States v. Germaine Cannady
924 F.3d 94
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- FBI arrested Michael Barrett after finding ~25 kg cocaine and ~6 kg heroin; Barrett cooperated and participated in recorded reverse-sting calls with lower-level distributors, including Germaine Cannady.
- Barrett testified he imported multiple kilogram shipments from California between 2013–2014 and distributed them through a network of associates; Cannady joined around Feb. 2014.
- Recorded calls show Cannady coordinating purchases, asking Barrett to ensure the shipment included “both” (cocaine and heroin), advising on pricing, and arranging to pick up drugs with co-defendant Parker.
- Barrett described Cannady as an ‘‘underboss’’ who procured burner phones, a police scanner, advised on pricing, and supplied other defendants with drugs.
- Cannady and three codefendants tried; jury convicted on conspiracy and attempt counts; Cannady challenged (1) alleged variance/multiple conspiracies, (2) refusal to give multiple-conspiracy instruction, (3) denial of severance, and (4) sufficiency of evidence/judgment of acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cannady) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal variance / single vs. multiple conspiracies | Indictment alleged single conspiracy but evidence showed separate hub‑and‑spoke conspiracies with Barrett as lone hub | Evidence showed overlapping actors, methods, goals constituting a single conspiracy including Cannady’s extensive role | No fatal variance; evidence supports single conspiracy |
| Multiple‑conspiracy jury instruction | District court should have instructed jury on multiple conspiracies because proof suggested separate conspiracies | Facts supported a single conspiracy; instruction unnecessary and would not likely change verdict | No abuse of discretion refusing instruction |
| Severance of trials (joinder) | Charges/offenses should be severed (conspiracy separate from attempt counts; defendants severed) to avoid prejudice | Joinder proper under Rule 8; offenses and defendants part of common scheme; no showing of prejudice | Joinder proper; district court did not abuse discretion in denying severance |
| Sufficiency of evidence / acquittal & outrageous conduct | Evidence insufficient (reliant on cooperating agent Barrett / recorded calls); government’s provision of medication to Barrett was ‘‘outrageous’’ conduct | Barrett’s testimony and recordings were sufficient; medication given was lawful and not outrageous | Evidence sufficient for conviction; no due‑process violation from agent conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932 (4th Cir.) (indictment must charge offenses tried)
- United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195 (4th Cir.) (constructive amendment/fatal variance doctrine)
- United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876 (4th Cir.) (prejudice standard for variance showing)
- United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show prejudicial variance)
- United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368 (4th Cir.) (single vs. multiple conspiracy factors: overlap of actors, methods, goals)
- United States v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044 (4th Cir.) (participant need not know full scope of conspiracy)
- United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of requested jury instruction)
- United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480 (4th Cir.) (when multiple‑conspiracy instruction required)
- United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d 399 (4th Cir.) (joinder and severance standards under Rules 8 and 14)
- United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.) (presumption for joint trials and severance prejudice requirement)
- United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of acquittal)
- United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.) (Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard applied)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court) (any rational trier of fact standard)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (Supreme Court) (government agent involvement not per se outrageous)
- United States v. Goodwin, 854 F.2d 33 (4th Cir.) (sting operations and outrageous conduct standard)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (Supreme Court) (distinguishing multiple unrelated conspiracies from a single conspiracy)