United States v. Jeremy Jackson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14354
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Four defendants (Maggard, Bell, Jackson, Neeley) were tried together for a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy in southern Indiana; 15 co-defendants pled guilty earlier. A jury convicted the four; sentences ranged up to life.
- Government used two court-authorized wiretaps on Maggard’s phones, intercepting ~4,000 calls/texts; Maggard, Bell, and Neeley moved to suppress this evidence.
- Jessie Jackson died after consuming a potent capsulated dose of methamphetamine on April 5, 2014; Jackson (her husband) and Neeley were alleged to have provided the drug. The indictment included a sentencing enhancement that death resulted from methamphetamine distributed by Jackson and Neeley.
- Pretrial motions at issue: suppression of wiretap evidence (Maggard, Bell, Neeley), severance of Maggard/Bell from Jackson/Neeley (Maggard, Bell), and bifurcation/suppression of evidence about Jessie’s death (Jackson). The district court denied all three motions.
- At trial the government presented intercepted communications, witness testimony tying Neeley to supplying Jackson, eyewitness accounts of events the day Jessie overdosed, and communications showing Maggard–Bell drug dealings. Defendants appealed denial of pretrial motions and argued insufficiency of evidence (Bell’s conspiracy role; Neeley’s supply causing Jessie’s death).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of wiretap evidence (necessity under 18 U.S.C. §2518) | Gov't: affidavits detailed other investigative methods tried/ruled out; wiretap was statutorily necessary | Maggard/Bell/Neeley: application and district court order were conclusory and did not meet the "full and complete" necessity showing | Court: affirms; affidavits provided detailed factual predicate and court properly found necessity; no abuse of discretion |
| 2. Motion to sever Maggard and Bell from Jackson/Neeley (Rule 14) | Gov't: joinder proper because defendants alleged to be co-conspirators; limiting instructions and other measures cure prejudice | Maggard/Bell: evidence of Jessie’s death (pertaining to Jackson/Neeley) unduly prejudiced them and severance was necessary | Court: waiver for failing to renew motion at close of evidence; even on merits denial was not an abuse of discretion — no actual prejudice; limiting instructions adequate |
| 3. Exclusion/bifurcation of death-related evidence (Rule 403) | Gov't: details of Jessie’s death were highly probative to link the fatal dose to Neeley/Jackson and to show events/mindset | Jackson: graphic details (photos, sex, refusal to call ambulance, video games) were unduly prejudicial and unnecessary | Court: evidence admitted; although prejudicial, its probative value in proving causation and connecting Neeley’s supply outweighed prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence that Bell was part of the conspiracy | Gov't: direct (calls/texts, trips together) and circumstantial (fronting, repeated transactions, middleman role) evidence showed an agreement to distribute beyond single buy-sell acts | Bell: he was only a buyer — regular purchases do not prove conspiratorial agreement | Court: affirms conviction; evidence (direct and circumstantial) supported inference of a distribution conspiracy membership |
| 5. Sufficiency of evidence that Neeley supplied the meth that killed Jessie (but-for causation) | Gov't: witnesses tied Neeley as Jackson’s regular supplier; observed Neeley’s car; Jackson told others he purchased potent capsulated meth from Neeley right before overdose; toxicology showed an extremely potent dose | Neeley: Country Squire Lakes had widespread meth activity; cannot be sure the fatal drug came from Neeley | Court: affirms enhancement; record viewed favorably to gov't supports that Neeley supplied the potent dose that was a but-for cause of Jessie’s death |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mandell, 833 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2016) (necessity requirement for wiretaps reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. McLee, 436 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2006) (wiretaps should not be routine initial step; practicality review)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joint trials preferred; limiting instructions often cure prejudice)
- United States v. Burrage, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but-for causation required for death-resulting sentencing enhancement)
- United States v. Durham, 766 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2014) (factual predicate in affidavit supports wiretap necessity)
- United States v. Avila, 557 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2009) (sale of drugs alone does not automatically create a conspiracy; agreement distinct from underlying sales)
- United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 403 balancing: probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Villasenor, 664 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2011) (fronting plus repeated transactions supports inference of conspiracy)
- United States v. Brown, 870 F.2d 1354 (7th Cir. 1989) (renewal of severance motion at close of evidence; futility exception discussed)