United States v. Prince Bey
725 F.3d 643
7th Cir.2013Background
- Bey appealing his conviction for conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute and aiding/abetting distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846.
- Bey waived an entrapment defense after proposing jury instructions and then not presenting evidence or witnesses.
- Evidence included middleman Bey, informant Chub, Hemphill seller, and drug deal arranged over weeks.
- Hemphill testified Bey received a finder’s fee and helped relay price/quantity information to Chub.
- Jury convicted; district court sentenced Bey to 110 months in prison.
- Santiago proffer allowed co-conspirator statements to be admitted if conspiracy existed and statements were in furtherance of it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment instruction waiver impact | Bey waived entrapment issue | Waiver absolves error regardless of instruction | Waiver precludes review; entrapment instruction not required |
| Admissibility of co-conspirator statements | There was a conspiracy between Hemphill and Bey to prove statements admissible | Insufficient evidence of conspiracy to admit Hemphill’s statements | Sufficient evidence of conspiracy; statements admitted under co-conspirator exemption |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Hemphill payment and Bey’s role show conspiracy | Record lacks explicit agreement between Bey and Hemphill | Evidence supports conspiracy conviction; Bey acted as middleman with stake in Hemphill’s sales |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago v. United States, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978) (Santiago proffer for co-conspirator testimony before trial)
- Cruz-Rea v. United States, 626 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2010) (co-conspirator statements admissible if conspiracy existed and statements in furtherance)
- United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (definition of unlawful conspiracy; must involve more than government agent)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy analysis for middleman scenarios)
- United States v. Garcia, 45 F.3d 196 (7th Cir. 1995) (middleman conspiracy without high-level participation)
- United States v. Rivera, 273 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2001) (avoid turning middleman into mere distributor; look for stake in seller’s sales)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency standard for criminal evidence)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (affirms Santiago-type evidentiary procedure)
- United States v. Cruz-Rea, 626 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2010) (co-conspirator statements admissible if party in conspiracy)