United States v. Solomon
2:22-cr-00222
| S.D. Ohio | May 20, 2025Background
- Abubakarr Savage was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, with the jury finding he was responsible for 1,000 kilograms or more, based on his own acts and those of reasonably foreseeable co-conspirators.
- The government prosecuted Savage and others as members of the "Third World Mob," a purported East African drug trafficking organization operating primarily in Columbus, Ohio, across nearly a decade.
- Evidence tying Savage to the conspiracy included: surveillance placing him at drug transaction locations; physical evidence (marijuana, cash, firearms, packaging materials) at premises linked to him; testimony from insider witnesses, and social media posts indicating his association with the organization.
- Savage challenged the sufficiency of this evidence, particularly arguing that his significant periods of incarceration and monitoring precluded his involvement in the volume of drug trafficking attributed to him.
- The Court reviewed Savage’s motion for acquittal under Rule 29 and, in the alternative, request for a new trial under Rule 33, both on grounds of insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Evidence collectively shows Savage knowingly joined and participated in the conspiracy | Insufficient direct evidence ties Savage to conspiracy due to incarceration periods | Sufficient evidence; motion denied |
| Quantity of drugs attributable to Savage | Amount was reasonably foreseeable given Savage's involvement and co-conspirator acts | Not reasonably foreseeable; not present or involved for much of conspiracy period | Jury could attribute amount; denied |
| Effect of incarceration/GPS monitoring/halfway house | Incarceration does not absolve ongoing liability; physical presence not required | Monitoring/incarceration precluded involvement and foreseeability | Does not preclude liability; denied |
| Need for new trial (manifest weight/substantial error) | Evidence and trial were procedurally fair; verdict supported by substantial evidence | Verdict against weight of evidence; potential procedural/legal error | No grounds for new trial; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) (conspiracy under § 846 does not require proof of an overt act)
- United States v. Smith, 749 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2014) (review of sufficiency of evidence is highly deferential to jury verdict)
- United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2006) (circumstantial evidence and co-conspirator testimony can support conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2015) (incarcerated defendants can be liable for actions of an ongoing conspiracy)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory punishment must be found by the jury)