United States v. Saraeun Min, 704 F.3d 314

Phunorganized a group to rob a stash house but the stash house and drugs were fictitious, created by undercover agents.
The six defendants—Phun, Min, Un, Johnson, Stevens, and McCalister—were charged with conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kg+ of cocaine, and firearms during a crime of violence.
All six were tried jointly after the district court denied severance; Min’s redacted confession was admitted against him with a limiting instruction.
The stash-house sting relied on police fabrication, yet the defendants challenged severance, the redacted confession, and evidentiary/charging issues.
The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, and held the convictions valid, addressing impossibility, testimony, and a jury-form correction as non-prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Min’s redacted confession in a joint trial was proper	Government relied on Akinkoye to justify non-abusive severance	Defendants argued Bruton/Gray would render confession inadmissible	Yes; district court did not abuse discretion, redacted confession admitted with limiting instruction
Is factual impossibility a defense to conspiracy charges	Impossibility not a defense; conspiracy punishes agreement	Impossibility should defeat conspiracy liability	No; impossibility does not defeat conspiracy; evidence supported convictions
Whether Detective Snyder’s lay-testimony about conversations was admissible under Rule 701	Testimony aided jury understanding; based on perception	Potentially improper lay opinion from officer-witness	Yes; testimony admissible as lay opinion under Rule 701
Whether the verdict-form correction during deliberations was reversible error	Correction timely and harmless	Possible improper jury influence, insufficient notice	Harmless error; convictions affirmed

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (seizure of non-testifying co-defendant confession violates confrontation clause when direct incrimination is present)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redaction can avoid Bruton where it eliminates the defendant's existence)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (facial incrimination if redaction clearly reveals the existence of a defendant)
United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1999) (redacted statements referencing ‘another person’ not facially incriminating)
Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (U.S. 2003) (conspiracy punished for agreement, not completed act; impossibility not a defense)
United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 2010) (amounts in conspiracy evidence need not be based on actual seized drugs; context-specific)