United States v. Sara Jarrett
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14585
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- A jury convicted Jarrett of conspiracy to distribute marijuana (Count I) and conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count II).
- The superseding indictment charged conspiracies with Williams, Hernandez, and Jarrett; Count II targeted money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and § 2.
- Before trial, Williams (pro se) sought a continuance; Jarrett opposed and moved for severance, which the district court denied.
- At trial, evidence showed Jarrett used proceeds from the marijuana conspiracy to pay for travel and lodging; objection to evidence of non-charged expenditures was overruled.
- In closing, the court instructed the jury with a model conspiracy instruction and included money‑laundering elements and financial transactions not strictly limited to the indictment.
- A verdict found all three defendants guilty on both counts; Jarrett moved for acquittal on Count II, which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a constructive amendment of the indictment | Jarrett claims the instruction broadened the charge beyond Count II. | Jarrett argues the instruction allowed money‑laundering conduct not in the indictment. | No constructive amendment; conspiracy elements differ from money laundering. |
| Whether severance was required for trial with pro se co-defendant | Jarrett asserts prejudicial spillover from Williams's pro se defense. | Williams's pro se status alone warrants severance; Jarrett was prejudiced. | No plain error; no abuse from joint trial given overlapping conspiracy proof andJarrett's failure to seek severance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Renner, 648 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2011) (constructive amendment requires alteration of essential offense elements)
- United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1999) (conspiracy vs. substantive offense elements; amendments may not broaden conspiracy charge)
- United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (additional overt act within indictment time frame may not amount to amendment)
- United States v. Delgado, 653 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2011) (conspiracy to launder money; overt act evidence discussed in context of conspiracy elements)
- United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2001) (conspiracy principles and reliance on conspiratorial joinder for liability)
- United States v. Pou, 953 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1992) (prefer ordinary rule against severance where overlap exists)
- United States v. Mathison, 157 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1998) (no error from pro se co-defendant that prejudiced other defendant)