83 F.4th 696
8th Cir.2023Background
- December 2018 overdose traced to heroin laced with fentanyl sold from an apartment rented by Relondo Hall and Anthony Abari; police executed searches in Jan., Apr., and July 2019.
- January search at the apartment found ~100 g heroin/fentanyl, a digital scale, a 9 mm handgun under Abari, Hall-linked paperwork, and Abari’s phone; Hall texted Green after the search.
- April search (different house) found ~21 g heroin/fentanyl and a handgun; Abari arrested and remained in custody thereafter.
- July search of Minnie Loyd’s home (Green’s girlfriend) found ~298 g heroin/fentanyl, $190,302, and items linking Green to the residence; total drug seizures during the alleged conspiracy ≈ 418 g.
- Hall pleaded guilty and testified that Green supplied heroin to Hall and Abari but ceased dealing with them in March 2019; trial evidence included texts, cell‑tower data, phone records, bodycam footage, and expert testimony.
- Jury convicted Green and Abari of conspiracy to distribute 400+ grams fentanyl mixtures (and related possession counts); court sentenced Green to 180 months and Abari to 240 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by refusing a multiple‑conspiracies jury instruction | Gov’t: evidence supports a single, continuing conspiracy covering the charged period and quantity | Green/Abari: evidence supports two or more separate conspiracies (ending March 2019), so jury must be instructed | No reversible error; although evidence could support multiple conspiracies, omission did not cause substantial prejudice and substantial single‑conspiracy evidence existed |
| Whether ordering Abari shackled/handcuffed throughout trial violated due process | Gov’t: restraints necessary for courtroom security given threats and disruptive conduct | Abari: restraints prejudiced his right to fair trial and due process | Affirmed; district court acted within discretion given threats, prior disruptions, and precautions to minimize prejudice |
| Whether district court abused discretion by admitting only parts of Abari’s post‑arrest interview | Gov’t: admitted portions tied Abari to phone, apartment, Hall and handgun; other denials were not required for completeness | Abari: full recording or his exculpatory denials should have been admitted under Rule 106 | No abuse of discretion; admitted excerpts were not misleading and excluded denials were either cumulative or would not have altered the overwhelming evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Green constructively possessed 298 g found at Loyd’s home | Gov’t: circumstantial links (frequent presence, personal items, cell‑tower data, prior drug supply to co‑defendants, timing of arrest) show constructive possession | Green: government failed to prove actual or constructive possession of the drugs in Loyd’s residence | Affirmed; a rational jury could find constructive possession based on the totality of circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (restraints on defendant allowed only for special need after balancing prejudice)
- United States v. Nevils, 897 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1990) (multiple‑conspiracies instruction required when evidence supports separate conspiracies)
- United States v. Davis, 882 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1989) (instruction unnecessary when evidence substantially points to a single conspiracy)
- United States v. Haslip, 416 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2005) (reversal for failure to give multiple‑conspiracies instruction only when substantial prejudice shown)
- United States v. Armstrong, 60 F.4th 1151 (8th Cir. 2023) (defendant entitled to instruction if timely, supported by evidence, and legally correct)
- United States v. Ali, 47 F.4th 691 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review for Rule 106/completeness rulings)
- United States v. Ramos‑Caraballo, 375 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2004) (scope and limits of Rule 106 rule of completeness)
- United States v. Two Hearts, 32 F.4th 659 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Thompson, 686 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2012) (constructive possession supported by frequent presence, access, and other indicia of dominion)