United States v. Philip Delgrosso
852 F.3d 821
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Delgrosso and Cain ran Missouri Auto Group and entered a profit‑sharing arrangement with Jerry Wright, who provided large amounts of cash to buy cars that the dealership sold.
- Wright actually ran a methamphetamine trafficking organization; over $150,000 (according to the Government) passed through the dealership by Wright’s cash purchases and cashier’s checks.
- DEA investigation led to guilty pleas from multiple DTO members; Delgrosso and Cain were tried for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and related counts; Delgrosso was also charged with failing to file IRS Form 8300. Both were convicted.
- At trial Wright invoked the Fifth; other DTO members testified about Wright’s drug activity and interactions with Delgrosso and Cain; Delgrosso had earlier provided an IRS letter and testified denying knowledge but admitted he did not perform background checks.
- Post‑trial Wright submitted an affidavit saying he misled Delgrosso and Cain; defendants moved for new trials (newly discovered evidence and Brady/govt misconduct), challenged a willful‑blindness jury instruction, sought judgment of acquittal, and Delgrosso sought safety‑valve relief at sentencing. The district court denied relief on all grounds; the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Delgrosso's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| New trial — newly discovered evidence (Wright affidavit) | Affidavit shows defendants lacked knowledge; warrants new trial | Affidavit likely inadmissible or untrustworthy; even if admitted, jury could still convict; not likely to produce acquittal | Denied — no abuse of discretion (affidavit insufficient to produce acquittal) |
| New trial — government misconduct / Brady | Government suppressed or used false evidence (police reports, Welch affidavit) depriving due process | Motion untimely; alleged misconduct was known during trial; no proof of suppressed material evidence | Denied — untimely and allegations lack material evidence of Brady violation |
| Jury instruction — willful blindness | Instruction inappropriate because defendants inquired about Wright’s funds | Evidence supported inference of deliberate ignorance or actual knowledge | Affirmed — instruction proper; no plain error |
| Judgment of acquittal | Verdict against weight of evidence; insufficient proof of knowing participation | Evidence (witnesses, prior conduct, circumstantial) permitted inference of knowledge or deliberate ignorance | Denied — sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury |
| Safety‑valve relief (§3553(f)) | Delgrosso provided truthful, complete information (trial testimony + IRS letter) | Court found his disclosures not forthright; did not satisfy truthful proffer requirement | Denied — district court’s finding that he failed to truthfully provide all information not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Duke, 255 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2001) (standards for new‑trial motion based on newly discovered evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for willful blindness instruction: deliberate failure to inquire supports instruction)
- United States v. Haire, 806 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2015) (willful blindness instruction appropriate when evidence supports deliberate ignorance)
- United States v. Ojeda, 23 F.3d 1473 (8th Cir. 1994) (knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Honea, 660 F.3d 318 (8th Cir. 2011) (safety‑valve eligibility and assessment of truthful, complete disclosures)
- United States v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2013) (definition of materiality for Brady claims)
- United States v. Boesen, 599 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2010) (timeliness of motions for new trial under Rule 33)
- United States v. Paris, 816 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)