United States v. Robert Wallace
20-6181
| 6th Cir. | Apr 11, 2022Background:
- Between March 2014 and April 2017 Robert Carlson ran a courier operation for the Sinaloa cartel, trafficking ~1,680 kg cocaine, ~2,050 lb marijuana, ~40 lb meth, and returning hundreds of millions in cash on chartered private flights.
- Katharine Matthews was alleged to be Carlson’s “partner”: she counted plastic‑wrapped bundles, packed and transported suitcases of drugs and cash, photographed cash bundles, delivered proceeds to cartel members and received payment (over $100,000 total).
- A superseding indictment charged seven defendants (including Matthews and Wallace) with three conspiracies: cocaine/meth (Count 1), marijuana (Count 2), and money‑laundering (Count 3).
- Matthews was tried and convicted on all three counts (jury found no meth attributable to her); district court later granted acquittal on venue for Count 2 but denied other post‑verdict relief.
- Robert Wallace (pilot) pleaded guilty to Count 1, received a below‑Guidelines 60‑month sentence; both Matthews and Wallace appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 1 & 3) | Matthews: government failed to prove she knew of and intended to join drug and money‑laundering conspiracies | Government: testimony (Carlson, Fajardo), texts, photos, records, payments corroborate knowledge, participation, and laundering acts | Convictions supported; evidence sufficient for jury to find knowledge, intent, and laundering conduct |
| Manifest‑weight / New trial | Matthews: convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence; witnesses incredible | Government: documentary corroboration supports witness testimony | District court’s denial was not a clear or manifest abuse of discretion |
| Deliberate‑ignorance jury instruction | Matthews: instruction improperly allowed jury to infer intent to join conspiracy from deliberate ignorance | Government: instruction properly limited to proving knowledge of the conspiracy’s aims and followed pattern language | Instruction proper (not tainted to prove agreement); even if error, harmless because ample evidence of actual knowledge and intent |
| Confrontation / Fifth Amendment invocation by Carlson | Matthews: Carlson’s invocation on cross undermined her confrontation rights and required striking his direct testimony | Government: witness may assert privilege; court limited invocation where privilege would not incriminate; defendants had adequate opportunity to impeach bias/motive | No violation: privilege properly sustained for tax/fraud topics that risked additional incrimination; court required answers on bias/negotiations; no prejudice shown |
| Material variance (single dual‑object conspiracy vs multiple conspiracies) | Matthews: Count 1 charged dual‑object (cocaine and meth) conspiracy but proof showed separate conspiracies, prejudicing venue and notice | Government: any variance does not prejudice Matthews; jury found participation in cocaine conspiracy; venue for cocaine established in ED Ky | No reversible variance prejudice: venue proper; participation in cocaine conspiracy found so any multiplicity didn’t harm Matthews’ substantial rights |
| Wallace sentencing — procedural & substantive reasonableness | Wallace: district court failed to adequately explain sentence, relied on improper benchmarks (life), over‑emphasized deterrence/pilot status; sentence greater than necessary | Government: court considered §3553(a) factors, balanced aggravating/mitigating factors, explained downward variance to 60 mos | Sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; no plain error; below‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Crozier v. United States, 259 F.3d 503 (6th Cir.) (elements and venue for drug conspiracy)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (overt act requirements for conspiracy scope)
- Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.) (elements of money‑laundering transaction and knowledge)
- Reed v. United States, 77 F.3d 139 (6th Cir.) (delivery of cash as a financial transaction)
- Mitchell v. United States, 681 F.3d 867 (6th Cir.) (deliberate‑ignorance/ostrich instruction framework)
- Warshawsky v. United States, 20 F.3d 204 (6th Cir.) (limits on deliberate‑ignorance to proving knowledge of conspiracy aims)
- Lee v. United States, 991 F.2d 343 (6th Cir.) (approving deliberate‑ignorance instruction in analogous drug‑cash transport case)
- Gullett v. United States, 713 F.2d 1203 (6th Cir.) (Fifth Amendment privilege can limit cross‑examination; balancing prejudice)
- Ross v. United States, 502 F.3d 521 (6th Cir.) (harmless‑error principle where deliberate‑ignorance instruction unsupported)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review of sentencing)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (requirement that sentencing court articulate reasons)
- Young v. United States, 847 F.3d 328 (6th Cir.) (procedural/substantive sentencing review standards)
- Rayyan v. United States, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir.) (appellate standard for review of sentencing explanations)