United States v. Ron Collins
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Collins was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in a drug-distribution conspiracy stretching from Mexico to Milwaukee.
- Two Mexico-based sources, Pedro and Margarito Flores, fronted cocaine to Collins, who supplied and directed a Chicago-area crew for distribution.
- Collins financially supported the operation by profiting about $1,500 per kilogram sold and coordinating sales to Gregory for Milwaukee distribution over years.
- Pedro Flores provided several November 2008 taped conversations with Collins; the government introduced three recordings at trial after a foundation was challenged.
- DEA agents authenticated the tapes through chain-of-custody and voice-identification methods; timestamps and phone records linked the recordings to Collins and Flores.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, finding Collins acted as a manager/supervisor in the conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tape recordings were properly admitted | United States argues proper foundation under Rule 901 | Collins contends inadequate foundation and possible tampering gaps | Admissible; foundation and custody reasonable; gaps affect weight, not admissibility |
| Whether expert testimony on coded language was admissible | Government allowed to explain drug-code language to aid jurors | Testimony impermissibly invaded mental-state analysis | Admissible as non-constitutional expert interpretation of common drug-trafficking codes |
| Whether the § 3B1.1 manager/supervisor enhancement was proper | Collins argues no supervisory role; only buyer-seller relation | Collins argues lack of control over Gregory or others | Enhanced; Collins acted as a manager/supervisor in the crew |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 294 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2002) (chain-of-custody methods for tape admissibility)
- United States v. Eberhart, 467 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2006) (evidentiary foundations for recordings and authenticity)
- United States v. Wilson, 973 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1992) (tampering possibilities do not render evidence inadmissible)
- United States v. Are, 590 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2009) (coded-language testimony admissible to aid jury understanding)
- United States v. Lipscomb, 14 F.3d 1236 (7th Cir. 1994) (expert testimony on drug trade practices permitted)
- United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2007) (admissibility of expert testimony on drug-dealer language)
- United States v. Doe, 613 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (considerations for supervisory role in § 3B1.1 analysis)
- United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2012) (analysis of 'otherwise extensive' under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Skoczen, 405 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2005) (conduct sufficient to justify supervisory role in scheme)
- United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing leader/organizer from mere buyer-seller)