United States v. Marques Smith
4 F.4th 679
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Smith was indicted and convicted for conspiracy to distribute >500 g methamphetamine; sentenced to 235 months and 10 years supervised release; he appealed the denial of his judgment of acquittal motion.
- Government disclosed a large set of witness statements the day before trial; a district standing order barred counsel from leaving sealed/unredacted documents with detained defendants, and jail would not permit in-person review without counsel present.
- Multiple witnesses (Sara Pray, Brooke Shields, Ashley Ross, and several purchasers) testified that Smith sold methamphetamine over years, made trips to obtain multi-ounce and multi-pound quantities, and ran a distribution network with intermediaries.
- Several witnesses also testified Smith sold synthetic marijuana and that he possessed or traded firearms (including testimony of meth-for-gun exchange and observation of magazines).
- Smith moved for acquittal/new trial arguing (1) improper admission of evidence of firearms and synthetic-marijuana trafficking under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), (2) discovery/standing-order and Sixth Amendment cross-examination prejudice, and (3) insufficient evidence of conspiracy; the district court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of firearm evidence under Rule 404(b) | Firearm evidence was improper propensity evidence | Firearms were intrinsic to the drug conspiracy (tools of the trade; tied to drug acts) | Admitted; firearms were intrinsic and probative of the conspiracy |
| Admissibility of synthetic‑marijuana evidence under Rule 404(b) | Evidence was extrinsic propensity evidence, not tied to the meth conspiracy | Synthetic‑marijuana sales were contemporaneous and blended with the meth distribution network | Admitted; evidence was intrinsic and provided context for the conspiracy |
| Standing Order & late disclosure — Rule 16 and Sixth Amendment cross‑examination | Standing Order plus last‑minute unredacted dump prevented effective cross‑examination and violated Rule 16 and the Sixth Amendment | Standing Order is lawful under Rule 16(d)(1); government says discovery was timely; no preserved objection or continuance requested | No plain error shown; Rule 16(d)(1) not violated and record lacks basis to show substantial prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | No proof of an agreement/common understanding to distribute meth | Testimony of long‑term distributors, purchasers, trips to acquire large quantities supports an agreement | Conviction supported; circumstantial testimony permitted a reasonable jury to infer conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 753 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes intrinsic vs extrinsic 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 1997) (weapons as tools of the drug trade probative of conspiracy)
- United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010) (firearm proximity to drugs supports inference of drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (cautions against admitting other‑crime evidence that acts as pure propensity proof for identification)
- United States v. Thomas, 760 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2014) (other drug distributions may be intrinsic when blended with charged offense)
- United States v. Rolon–Ramos, 502 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements required to prove drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can establish tacit agreement in drug conspiracies)