United States v. Sandra Parlier
570 F. App'x 509
6th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Parlier was convicted of conspiring to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
- Investigation identified multiple co-conspirators and substantial pseudoephedrine purchases; lab production amounted to about 800 grams overall.
- Evidence showed Parlier purchased pseudoephedrine regularly and supplied Ward, who manufactured methamphetamine with those pills.
- Co-conspirators testified Parlier transported pseudoephedrine from North Carolina to Tennessee for Ward in exchange for methamphetamine.
- Indictment charged a conspiracy with venue in the Eastern District of Tennessee; Parlier did not move for acquittal or raise venue objections in district court.
- Trial produced admissions and records linking Parlier to the conspiracy; she was sentenced to 135 months and directly appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue was proper in the district | Parlier argues venue was improper; government failed to prove venue. | Parlier contends venue defect existed and was not cured. | Venue was proper; defendant forfeited objection and, in any event, venue met a preponderance standard. |
| Variance between indictment and proof | Evidence supported multiple conspiracies; indictment alleged one. | There were two conspiracies; indictment mischaracterized. | There was a single conspiracy spanning two states; no reversible variance. |
| Admission of Detective Anderson’s testimony | Testimony about meth manufacture was relevant and probative. | Testimony was prejudicial and improper for engaging expert-like speculation. | Admission did not prejudice substantial rights; no plain error. |
| Rule 404(b) and probative value of other acts statements | Officers’ statements aided investigation; not character evidence. | Statements referenced prior acts; improper for rule 404(b). | Statements not prohibited Rule 404(b) evidence; no plain error. |
| Confrontation Clause and co-defendant Auton-Miller statement | Auton-Miller statement implicated Ward; its use was permissible. | Bruton issue; admission violated confrontation clause. | Non-testimonial hearsay not subject to Bruton; no constitutional error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2003) (venue proof may be by preponderance; improper-venue review for plain error if not preserved)
- United States v. Croizer, 259 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2001) (over acts in furtherance of conspiracy; venue can extend to co-conspirator acts)
- United States v. Adams, 803 F.2d 722 (6th Cir. 1986) (waiver of venue rights when not raised before trial; Rule 12(b)(3) duty to raise before trial)
- United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2002) (variance burden; existence of variance and prejudice)
- United States v. Swafford, 385 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 2004) (expert testimony by law-enforcement officers permissible with caution)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for forfeited error in criminal trial)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain-error review framework for miscarriages of justice)