United States v. Salah Dado
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13043
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Federal agents executed a search warrant at the Corlews’ Gladwin, Michigan property in Oct. 2009 and seized 1,287 marijuana plants and over 93 lbs processed marijuana; investigation identified a large grow operation (4,000–5,000 plants produced in 2009).
- Dado, a Flint liquor-store operator, financed the grow operation and purchased/distributed much of the harvested marijuana; he did not physically cultivate the plants.
- Dado was indicted (May 2011) for conspiracy to manufacture/distribute 1,000+ marijuana plants (21 U.S.C. § 846) and aiding/abetting manufacture (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)); he had a prior felony drug conviction, exposing him to a 20-year mandatory minimum.
- At trial, witnesses (Corlews, Schweikert, Abbott, others) connected Dado to funding and purchases; Abbott’s testimony was impeached on cross-examination as seeking leniency.
- Post-trial, Dado moved for a new trial alleging Brady (suppressed impeachment material) and Strickland violations; the district court held evidentiary hearings and denied relief. Dado was sentenced to concurrent 20-year mandatory minimums and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Dado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: nondisclosure of agent memo re: Abbott | Any disclosed impeachment would be cumulative and not outcome-determinative; case had corroborating evidence. | Suppressed memo impeached Abbott (false immunity claim, arson accusation, pursuit of immunity), materially affecting credibility and verdict. | No Brady violation: withheld items would not likely have changed result; Abbott’s key testimony was corroborated. |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to call/certain objections) | Counsel investigated witnesses and made reasonable strategic choices; errors, if any, were non-prejudicial. | Trial counsel erred by not calling cousin (to explain gun/medical-marijuana), not objecting to certain testimony, and opening door to prior-bad-act evidence. | No Strickland relief: counsel’s choices were strategic and not shown to be prejudicial in light of the record. |
| Jury instruction (buyer-seller) | Standard instructions adequately covered the law; requested wording omitted qualifying language and was inaccurate. | Requested buyer-seller instruction was required to prevent conflating ordinary commercial sales with conspiracy/aiding liability. | Denial not an abuse: proposed instruction inaccurate/omitted “mere” buyer-seller nuance and was substantially covered by given instructions. |
| Alleyne and §841(b) mens rea for quantity | Mandatory-minimum facts must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; Alleyne does not add a new mens rea requirement. | After Alleyne, jury must find defendant knew the drug type/quantity that triggers mandatory minimums; §841(b) should require mens rea. | Held: Alleyne does not impose a knowledge mens rea for the drug quantity element of §841(b); circuit precedent allowing strict liability as to quantity controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence to the defense)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be submitted to a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- United States v. Villarce, 323 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2003) (mens rea required by §841(a) is intent to distribute; court previously held no mens rea required for type/quantity under §841(b))
- United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (buyer-seller relationship alone generally insufficient to prove conspiracy)
- United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009) (discussion of §841(b) penalty provisions and their relation to mens rea)
- United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002) (requirement for particularized findings tying a defendant to the scope/foreseeability of conspirators’ conduct)