United States v. Jeremy Logwood, 20-2462

Jeremy Logwood was charged with conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine; jury convicted and district court sentenced him to 180 months.
The Government introduced four surveillance videos from two controlled buys (April 27 and May 5); Logwood moved in limine to exclude them, which the district court denied.
Defense expert Robert Gray testified the recordings had dropped frames causing audio lag and asynchrony between paired cameras (≈15 seconds for April 27, ≈10 minutes for May 5), but found no evidence of manipulation.
Logwood argued the videos were unreliable and the recording devices incapable of recording; the Government relied on the existence of the recordings and the expert’s lack of manipulation findings.
Logwood also requested a theory-of-defense jury instruction asserting he had no agreement, made no deliveries, and that Government witnesses were unreliable; the court declined the specific instruction but instructed on burden, reasonable doubt, and witness credibility.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the evidentiary and instructional rulings for abuse of discretion and affirmed the convictions and the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of surveillance videos (Rule 403/reliability)	Videos unreliable/misleading due to dropped frames and sync problems; should be excluded under Rule 403	Recordings exist; expert found no manipulation; defense can attack quality at trial and in argument	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice or confusion
Foundational requirement that recording devices be capable of recording	Devices were incapable because recordings showed dropped frames and imperfections	A device’s capacity is established by the existence of the recordings themselves; perfection not required	Device capability satisfied; admission appropriate
Refusal to give defendant’s proffered theory-of-defense instruction	Requested instruction explicitly stated defendant’s denial of agreement/delivery and attacked witness credibility; defendant entitled to theory-of-defense instruction	Jury instructions as a whole covered burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and witness credibility; counsel could argue the defense	Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the proffered instruction because the instructions and argument opportunities adequately presented the defense

United States v. Dean, 823 F.3d 422 (discretionary standard for admitting evidence)
United States v. Martinez, 951 F.2d 887 (admission of poor-quality tapes can be permissible)
United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729 (foundational guideline: recording device capable of recording)
United States v. McCowan, 706 F.2d 863 (device capability proven by existence of recordings)
United States v. Thunder, 745 F.3d 870 (standards for theory-of-defense instructions)
United States v. Gilmore, 968 F.3d 883 (jury instruction formulation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Glinn, 863 F.3d 985 (when de novo review applies to refusal of instruction denying legal defense)