United States v. Maria Moe
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987
9th Cir.2015Background
- Moe was indicted in January 2013 on conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams+ of methamphetamine and distribution of 50 grams+; she pleaded not guilty and went to trial.
- Govt. called five witnesses: four agents and one cooperating witness, Ellifritt, who testified Moe bought meth from him.
- Moe traveled from Helena, MT to Spokane, WA to buy; she typically purchased a half ounce monthly, with at least seven purchases from Dec 2009 to Dec 2010 totaling about 140 grams.
- Evidence included 94 cell-phone contacts and 51 text messages; they used code signals to discuss meth availability.
- Moe proposed jury instructions on multiple conspiracies and on buyer-seller vs conspiracy distinctions; the district court rejected them.
- Jury convicted Moe of conspiracy; the distribution charge was dismissed after an inability to reach verdict; Moe was sentenced to 66 months and four years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported conspiracy conviction | Moe argues evidence showed only buyer-seller sale | Government contends there was ongoing conspiracy | Evidence adequate; jury could find conspiracy under holistic review |
| Whether buyer-seller instruction was required | Buyer-seller rule should have been given | Not required given other instructions; evidence supported conspiracy | Not error to deny instruction; no prejudice given jury instructions as a whole |
| Whether cross-examination limits violated rights | Limit hindered defense by exposing other conspiracies | Limit was non-relevant; conspiracy theory not applicable | No error; cross-examination restriction proper since it did not affect charged conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Lennick v. United States, 18 F.3d 814 (9th Cir.1994) (buyer-seller rule limits conspiracy liability; sale alone not enough)
- Ramirez v. United States, 714 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.2013) (prolonged and actively pursued course of sales indicates conspiracy)
- Mincoff v. United States, 574 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2009) (holistic approach; considers entire course of dealing; multiple factors)
- Hawkins v. United States, 547 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.2008) (highly fact-specific analysis of buy-sell vs conspiracy)
- Marguet-Pillado v. United States, 648 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2011) (test for whether to reverse for failure to give a defense instruction)
- Bauer v. United States, 84 F.3d 1549 (9th Cir.1996) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; substantial latitude to district courts)
- Hegwood v. United States, 977 F.2d 492 (9th Cir.1992) (agreement may be inferred from conduct in conspiracy cases)
- Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703 (1936) (prolonged cooperation; evidence of ongoing collaboration between buyer and seller)