United States v. Lawrence Johnson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11878
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Johnson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, plus related drug and firearm offenses.
- Dwayne Appling’s disappearance created a decentralized, cooperative Waterloo heroin market with fronting and steering among dealers.
- Johnson operated as a Waterloo dealer, fronting heroin to others and receiving steering from intermediaries; others directed buyers to him.
- On January 12, 2011, Simmons purchased 2.1 grams of heroin from Johnson for $200 after a referral via a cooperating informant.
- On February 15, 2011, police seized seven bags of heroin and a loaded 9 mm handgun at Johnson’s residence; Johnson claimed ownership.
- The district court sentenced Johnson to life on count 1, 360 months on counts 11 and 14, 60 months on count 21, and 120 months on count 22, with certain concurrent/consecutive terms as described.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Johnson challenges sufficiency of conspiracy evidence. | Johnson contends no single conspiracy existed. | Sufficient evidence; single Waterloo conspiracy shown. |
| Constructive amendment/variance | Johnson argues unindicted coconspirators altered the charge. | Johnson contends evidence created multiple conspiracies. | No constructive amendment or harmful variance; single conspiracy. |
| Jury instructions on conspiracy and detectable vs measurable | Johnson argues error in not giving single-vs-multiple conspiracy instruction and in using 'detectable' rather than 'measurable'. | Johnson asserts misstatement misdirected jury on elements. | No reversible error; detectable versus measurable is acceptable under Nelson/Holland/Biondich line. |
| Sentencing ambiguity and order | Johnson claims oral pronouncement requires different concurrent/consecutive arrangement than written judgment. | — | Written judgment controls; district court intended count-21 consecutive after others. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whirlwind Soldier, 499 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007) (construction of conspiracy and requirement of proof)
- United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence suffices to show tacit agreement)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 1998) (single conspiracy may involve changing participants and activities)
- United States v. McGilberry, 620 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (variance or constructive amendment issues mooted by single-conspiracy finding)
- United States v. Nelson, 499 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1974) (qualitative suffices for possession of controlled substances)