United States v. Jeffrey Pendleton
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14828
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pendleton was indicted for conspiracy to distribute ≥500 g methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering; a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to concurrent long prison terms.
- Pretrial: Pendleton sought co-conspirators’ presentence investigation reports (PSRs); the magistrate conducted an in camera review and denied disclosure as not Brady material.
- Pendleton requested new counsel alleging poor investigation/communication; the magistrate/ district court denied withdrawal and appointment of new counsel.
- During voir dire a venireperson (43) mentioned knowing the Pendleton family and methamphetamine distribution; the court excused her but denied a mistrial and proceeded after instructions.
- At trial a co-conspirator (R.D.) testified that Pendleton assaulted her; photos of injuries were admitted. The government also presented witnesses who tied Pendleton to large drug transactions and testimony that he used proceeds to buy more drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSRs of co-conspirators had to be disclosed under Brady/Giglio | Pendleton: PSRs contained impeachment material (inconsistent statements) that the defense needed | Government: PSRs contained no Brady/Giglio material or the information was neutral/available elsewhere | Court: No Brady violation; in camera review found no material undisclosed info and any inconsistencies were cumulative or accessible to defense |
| Whether court should have appointed new counsel | Pendleton: Complete breakdown in communication and inadequate investigation justify new counsel | Government/Court: Counsel performed adequately, sought Brady material, visited client many times; breakdown due to defendant’s refusal to cooperate | Court: Denial of withdrawal/new counsel not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether venireperson 43’s extrajudicial comment required mistrial or striking the venire | Pendleton: Comment tainted the entire panel and required mistrial | Government/Court: Court promptly cut off and excused juror, gave instructions, and voir dire confirmed jurors could be impartial | Court: No abuse of discretion; curative measures and presumption that jurors follow instructions were sufficient |
| Admissibility of assault evidence (R.D.’s testimony and photos) | Pendleton: Assault evidence irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401/403 | Government: Evidence showed Pendleton’s role and control in the conspiracy; photos supported credibility | Court: Evidence relevant to conspiracy role and not unduly prejudicial; admission proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence on money-laundering conviction | Pendleton: Government failed to prove he engaged in transactions to promote drug activity (or to conceal funds) | Government: Witnesses testified that proceeds were used to buy additional methamphetamine, showing promotion of illegal activity | Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to government, sufficient evidence supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable material that is material to guilt or punishment)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (Giglio extends Brady to impeachment information)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality standard for Brady: reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (definition of materiality and cumulative impact under Brady)
- United States v. DeVore, 839 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review for Brady/ disclosure rulings)
- United States v. Flores-Mireles, 112 F.3d 337 (8th Cir. 1997) (Brady does not require disclosure of neutral or speculative information)
- United States v. Boone, 437 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards for evaluating requests for new counsel)
- United States v. Lockett, 601 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Gasim Al-Dabbi, 388 F.3d 1145 (8th Cir. 2004) (violent acts may be relevant to proving role and control in drug conspiracy)