United States v. Payton
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3676
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Payton and Hines were tried jointly for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, plus a crack-house count and distribution count; Morgan and Parks pled guilty and cooperated.
- Evidence showed drug dealing activities beginning in 2008, including purchases at Nichols's apartment, Hines's distribution to others, and multiple police raids resulting in crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia found at various locations.
- Payton admitted long crack-cocaine use, spending SSI funds on crack, and providing a cell phone used in the drug operation; he described himself as a crack user and collaborator with Hines rather than a sole dealer.
- December 18, 2008, Morgan arranged a $300 crack cocaine purchase from Hines at Parks's apartment, which Payton attended; officers recovered 20 rocks of crack cocaine from the scene.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a notice of prior conviction for a sentencing enhancement; Morgan and Parks cooperated against Payton and Hines.
- The district court calculated drug quantity for sentencing, ultimately applying a 181.24 gram total, guiding the Guideline calculations and mandatory minimum considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying severance | Payton: defenses antagonistic; prejudice from joinder. | Hines: defenses not irreconcilable; joint trial appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; severance denied. |
| Whether the Batson challenge was properly resolved | Payton: race-based striking of juror not neutral because no inquiry. | Government showed race-neutral reason; juror knew counsel and was legitimate concern. | District court did not clearly err; Batson challenge fails. |
| Whether exculpatory evidence was improperly withheld (Brady) | Payton: Morgan's sentencing testimony exculpates; failure to disclose. | Government preserved arguments; records incomplete; no suppression shown. | No Brady violation proven; no plain error. |
| Whether district court erred in jury instructions (addict-informant and drug-house) | Addict-informant instruction warranted; drug-house instruction warranted. | Court should give Payton’s proposed instructions. | No error: addict-informant instruction rejected; credibility instructions adequate; drug-house instruction properly declined but correctly modeled by court. |
| Whether evidence and quantity supported conspiracy, maintenance of a drug house, and distribution; and related sentencing | Sufficiency and proper drug-quantity attribution disputed; Parks as unreliable; pre-join acts argued not attributable. | Sufficient evidence supports all convictions; quantity reasonably determined from trial and corroborating testimony; conspiracy breadth supports liability. | Sufficiency upheld; drug-quantity calculation not clearly erroneous; conspiracy, maintenance, and distribution supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sandstrom, 594 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for severance under Rule 14)
- United States v. Mickelson, 378 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) (no automatic prejudice from evidence admissible against codefendants)
- United States v. Ellison, 616 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2010) (review of district court credibility findings in Batson claims)
- United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2010) (when nondiscriminatory reasons for peremptory strike are given, review focuses on district court's ultimate finding)
- United States v. Hoppe, 645 F.2d 630 (8th Cir. 1981) (addict-informant instructions: case-by-case factors determine need)
- United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006) (guideline quantity for conspiracy sentencing; admissibility of corroborating testimony)
- United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2003) (personal use quantities included for conspiracy sentencing)
- United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2009) (quantity determination when seized amount underrepresents offense scale)