United States v. Lin
24-6130
| 10th Cir. | Mar 24, 2025Background
- Tong Lin was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- Law enforcement investigated a large illegal marijuana distribution operation in Oklahoma, identifying Lin as helping operate a Wetumka grow site.
- Agents seized nearly 20,000 plants, 460 pounds of marijuana, a firearm, and over $100,000 in cash at the site.
- Lin assisted in loading marijuana into a disguised van for interstate transport and was identified as a manager at the grow.
- Lin appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of state-law compliance evidence, the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance, and claiming cumulative trial error.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Lin) | Appellee's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (marijuana identity) | Evidence was inadequate to prove substance was marijuana | Multiple forms of evidence showed substance was marijuana | Evidence was sufficient; conviction upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence (knowledge/intent) | Gov't must prove Lin knew substance was controlled/illegal | Knowledge of substance's identity (marijuana) suffices | Evidence sufficient for knowledge/intent |
| Exclusion of state-law compliance evidence | Should have been allowed to show belief that conduct was legal | Only knowledge of substance required; belief irrelevant | Exclusion proper; belief not relevant |
| Jury instruction on deliberate ignorance | Deliberate ignorance instruction was error | Supported by facts and circumstantial evidence | No error in giving instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banks, 884 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2018) (circumstantial evidence is routinely used to prove knowledge and intent)
- United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2005) (knowledge and intent are rarely established by direct evidence)
- United States v. Delreal-Ordones, 213 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2000) (deliberate ignorance instructions are appropriate based on circumstantial evidence)
- McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015) (discusses required mens rea for federal drug crimes)