United States v. Milo Davis
690 F.3d 912
8th Cir.2012Background
- Davis was charged with conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine and money laundering in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (1997–2006; superseding counts added powder cocaine and marijuana).
- Pretrial suppression and in limine motions sought to exclude a destroyed February 2000 surveillance videotape; motions denied.
- Trial spanned four days with sixteen witnesses detailing large-scale drug distribution by Davis through Headquarterz Barbershop and cash purchases.
- Jury convicted Davis of conspiracy and money laundering; marijuana object of conspiracy rejected; concurrent sentences imposed.
- Davis challenged sufficiency of the evidence, pre-indictment delay, spoliation/discovery issues, jury instruction, juror bias, and FSA retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conspiracy and money laundering evidence | Evidence shows individual deals; no single ongoing conspiracy. | Witnesses show broad, interdependent network; warrants conspiracy. | Evidence supports a single conspiracy and money laundering beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Pre-indictment delay due to videotape destruction | Delay and destruction prejudiced defense; bad faith implied tactical advantage. | No actual prejudice; destruction part of routine procedure; no bad faith shown. | No due process violation; delay not constitutionally prejudicial. |
| Striking Parks’s testimony | District court abused discretion by striking Parks’s testimony in its entirety. | Cross-examination limited; striking was appropriate to avoid prejudice and hearsay concerns. | District court did not abuse discretion; striking appropriate. |
| Juror No. 1 bias and voir dire | Failure to excuse biased juror violated impartiality rights. | Juror disclosed familiarity but stated impartiality; court not required to strike. | No abuse of discretion; juror impartiality satisfactorily evidenced. |
| Retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) | FSA should apply retroactively and reduce mandatory minimums. | FSA not retroactive as to conduct before enactment; harmless error analysis. | Any error harmless; sentencing aligned with guideline framework and case facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2011) (interdependence of participants supports existence of conspiracy)
- United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence of large-scale drug distribution supports ongoing conspiracies)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 1998) (shared objective to sell drugs can sustain a single conspiracy)
- United States v. Massa, 740 F.2d 629 (8th Cir. 1984) (single overarching conspiracy permissible despite multiple acts)
- United States v. Delgado, 653 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2011) (ongoing relationships and interdependence support conspiracy verdict)
- United States v. McGilberry, 620 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (single conspiracy can encompass multiple actors and acts)
- United States v. Dinwiddie, 618 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2010) (role of conspirators may change without creating multiple conspiracies)
- United States v. Bartlett, 794 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir. 1986) (prejudice from missing evidence must be substantial to violate due process)
- United States v. McKneely, 69 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 1995) (striking witness testimony where source denied identification is permissible)
- United States v. Lawson, 837 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1988) (trial court's handling of Fifth Amendment invocation and cross-examination)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA retroactivity clarified by Supreme Court)