United States v. Michael Wells
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3082
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wells was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to manufacture 50+ grams of methamphetamine and seven counts of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; district court sentenced him to 267 months.
- Authorities investigated Wells after logs showed Wells and family purchases of pseudoephedrine from 2008–2009 in patterns suggesting use in meth fabrication.
- An August 2009 arrest led to discovery of a shake-and-bake meth lab; a fire/explosion and a burned rug occurred at Wells’s residence.
- Mandy testified that Tonya and Wells solicited pseudoephedrine purchases for themselves and that Wells gave her methamphetamine in exchange for pills.
- Expert testimony and logs were offered to establish patterns and signatures; the government alleged the logs supported intent to manufacture methamphetamine; Wells challenged certain evidence and the guidelines enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause and logs admissibility | Wells argues logs are testimonial. | Wells argues Melendez-Diaz precludes admission. | Logs admissible as non-testimonial business records. |
| Admissibility of Gregory’s testimony on patterns | Patterns indicate intent to manufacture meth. | Testimony should be barred under Rule 704(b). | Testimony allowed; not impermissibly commenting on Wells’s mental state. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and 50 g threshold | Evidence shows agreement to manufacture meth and 50+ g. | Insufficient evidence of a conspiratorial quantity. | Sufficient evidence to convict on count one and related counts. |
| Entitlement to sentencing enhancements (leadership, substantial risk of harm) | Enhancements warranted given role and danger. | Enhancements inappropriate or overstated. | Two-level leadership and substantial-risk-of-harm enhancements affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation clause for certificates of analysis; non-testimonial)
- Mashek v. United States, 606 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (non-testimonial business records allowed under 803(6))
- Malloy v. United States, 614 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy elements and drug quantity considerations)
- Hodge v. United States, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence may establish tacit agreement)
- Voegtlin v. United States, 437 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2006) (leadership/managerial role in offenses—broader interpretation)
- Pinnow v. United States, 469 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2006) (factors for substantial-risk-of-harm enhancement)
- Anderson v. United States, 236 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2001) (relevance of laboratory yield as to conspiracy quantity)