United States v. Joshua Bowser
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5196
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bowser, Miller, and Jordan were part of a large Outlaws Motorcycle Club investigation and were convicted/charged in a multi-defendant proceeding.
- An extensive FBI investigation led to a Second Superseding Indictment charging 51 defendants with 49 offenses; most pleaded guilty, but Bowser, Miller, and Jordan did not.
- Bowser pleaded guilty to ten offenses plus nolo contendere to a RICO count; court allowed plea to avoid admitting Outlaws as a criminal enterprise, but later denied acceptance of responsibility.
- Miller proceeded to a jury trial on racketeering; he contested the government’s proof of the predicate acts, including a robbery at issue.
- Jordan went to trial on conspiracy to distribute cocaine and unlawful use of a communication facility; trial evidence included wiretaps, recorded calls, and testimony from Nava-Arredondo and Stonebraker.
- Bowser’s and others’ sentences were imposed; Bowser received 180 months with an error later acknowledged on a supervised-release search condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Jordan’s conspiracy to distribute cocaine | Jordan contends no explicit agreement to distribute | Nava’s testimony and trial evidence show agreement beyond buyer-seller | Sufficient evidence supported conspiracy conviction |
| Leading questions at trial | Nava/Stonebraker testimony would be undermined by leading Qs | Questions were permissible; no abuse of discretion | No abuse; admissible leading questions under discretionary standard |
| Existence of Jordan’s prior drug felony for § 841(b)(1)(B) sentence | Government proved prior conviction with court records | Records had hearsay and alias issues; insufficient proof | District court properly found prior conviction beyond reasonable doubt |
| Bowser’s acceptance of responsibility and § 3E1.1 reduction | Nolo plea should preclude acceptance; no further facts needed | Judge relied on facts beyond the plea; no automatic denial | Court did not clearly err; denial of acceptance of responsibility upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Molton, 743 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for sufficiency after acquittal motions)
- United States v. Torres-Chavez, 744 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Domnenko, 763 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency standard applied to conspiracy/possession cases)
- United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (U.S. 2003) (essence of conspiracy is agreement to commit an unlawful act)
- United States v. Iannelli, 420 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1975) (conspiracy requires an unlawful agreement)
- United States v. Brown, 726 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2013) (buyer–seller distinctions in conspiracy; need distinct distribution agreement)
- United States v. Villasenor, 664 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2011) (buyer-seller relationship alone not conspiracy without distribution objective)
- United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (requirement of distribution agreement in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (separating buy-sell from conspiracy evidence)
- United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011) (evidence of conspiracy must show joint objective beyond mere sale)
- United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy evidence from intercepted communications)
- United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1993) (sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (en banc))