United States v. Slagg
651 F.3d 832
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Superseding indictment charged seven defendants with drug conspiracy; Slagg and Taylor went to trial while others pled guilty.
- Companion counts charged money laundering conspiracy; Slagg and Taylor were among those charged.
- Trial evidence showed a Bismarck, ND meth network with interdependent actors supplying, distributing, and coordinating large quantities over 2008–2009.
- Slagg and Harper, among others, testified to fronting and pooling funds and to transactions with co-conspirators.
- The government sought forfeiture of proceeds including Slagg’s $50,000 bail posted to secure his release, tied to the conspiracy.
- Judgment followed: Slagg convicted on both drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy; Taylor convicted only on drug conspiracy; both sentenced accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug conspiracy (Slagg) | Slagg contends no single conspiracy existed; evidence shows only episodic transactions. | Slagg argues multiple, smaller conspiracies or only buyer-seller transactions. | Evidence supports a single overarching conspiracy; no reversal. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for money laundering conspiracy | Prosecution showed funds derived from unlawful activity and used to post bail. | Insufficient proof that funds were proceeds or that bail was designed to conceal. | Evidence sufficient to prove proceeds and concealment intent. |
| Taylor's participation and jury instruction on buyer-seller relation | Taylor knowingly participated in the conspiracy; instruction requested to distinguish mere buyer-seller from conspiracy. | A buyer-seller relationship alone does not prove conspiracy. | Evidence supported knowing involvement; district court did not abuse by declining the proposed instruction. |
| Forfeiture predicated on drug conspiracy vs acquitted count | Indictment gives notice to forfeit on conviction for drug conspiracy. | Forfeiture based on money laundering count; acquittal should preclude. | Forfeiture order upheld as based on drug conspiracy conviction; not predicated on acquitted count. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yarrington, 634 F.3d 440 (8th Cir.2011) (general framework for sufficiency review on appeal)
- United States v. Scofield, 433 F.3d 580 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review for acquittal and sufficiency, defer to jury verdict)
- United States v. Donnell, 596 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.2010) (sufficiency review and standard for reviewing new trial motions)
- United States v. Espinosa, 585 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting general sufficiency standards in conspiracy context)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir.1998) (interdependence of conspirators supports single conspiracy theory)
- United States v. Cabbell, 35 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir.1994) (multiple sources of drugs do not create multiple conspiracies)
- United States v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044 (4th Cir.1993) (relationship-based conspiracy concepts in distribution)
- United States v. Romero, 150 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.1998) (one conspiracy may exist despite multiple groups and acts)
- United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.2005) (fronting and organization of distribution support conspiracy verdict)
- United States v. Eneff, 530 F.3d 657 (8th Cir.2008) (evidence of resale quantities supports conspiracy finding)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008) (design/concealment element requires intended concealment in money laundering)