United States v. Rasheed Shakur
691 F.3d 979
8th Cir.2012Background
- Shakur and Stockman were tried together for drug offenses, including conspiracies and firearms offenses; Shakur faced life, Stockman 36 months.
- Government evidence linked Shakur to a multimillion-dollar trafficking operation, with packages mailed from Phoenix and California to Kansas City.
- Wiretaps and informants connected Shakur to large drug shipments and cash proceeds used to fund the operation.
- Stockman was alleged to have knowingly participated in the conspiracy, receiving and handling drug shipments and cash, though no drugs were found at his residence.
- After verdicts, the district court addressed forfeiture allegations; Shakur sought to contest several forfeiture items and later moved to represent himself at sentencing.
- The court improperly handled forfeiture procedures, leading to the appellate court reversing the forfeiture order and affirming the remaining convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying trial counsel's withdrawal and denying self-representation at trial | Shakur asserted breakdown in attorney-client communications and demanded new counsel | Government asserted no substantial basis to replace counsel; trial proceeding should continue | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion in denying |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing Shakur to represent himself at sentencing | Shakur argued waiver was not knowing and intelligent | Record showed familiarity with proceedings and no prejudice from self-representation | No abuse of discretion; the sentencing context supported self-representation |
| Whether the forfeiture order was valid given Rule 32.2 deficiencies | Shakur contended the court failed to follow Rule 32.2 procedures and include forfeiture in judgment | Government argued forfeiture was properly adjudicated via Rule 32.2 | Reversed; district court violated Rule 32.2 and cannot enforce forfeiture |
| Whether Stockman had sufficient evidence of conspiracy to distribute <50 kilograms of marijuana | Sufficient evidence existed tying Stockman to the conspiracy | The government failed to show Stockman’s knowing participation | Sufficient evidence supported conviction for conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms |
| Whether the admission of $30,000 cash was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Cash evidence connected Stockman to drug trafficking and unfairly prejudiced | Cash was probative circumstantial evidence of conspiracy | No abuse; district court did not err in admitting the cash despite potential prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Day, 998 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1993) (factors governing decision to permit or deny self-representation)
- Ausler v. United States, 545 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of inquiry into attorney-client conflict when request to withdraw)
- United States v. Koch, 491 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2007) (clerical or nonclerical amendments to judgments in forfeiture context)
- United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003) (Rule 35(a) and authority to correct sentences within time)
- United States v. Yakle, 463 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing legal error from clerical error in sentencing forfeiture)
- United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011) (court declined to vacate tardy forfeiture orders in equal context)