United States v. Stevenson
680 F.3d 854
7th Cir.2012Background
- Stevenson was convicted by a jury of distributing crack cocaine.
- Quincy, a crack-addicted individual, agreed to cooperate as an informant after being caught with drugs in her car.
- Quincy purchased crack from Stevenson on three controlled transactions observed by law enforcement.
- Investigation recorded audio/video of Stevenson during the exchanges; drugs tested positive for crack.
- The defense urged a theory that Quincy fabricated the drugs or that leftover crack from her car was turned over as evidence.
- The district court sentenced Stevenson to 158 months, above the guidelines, while a business partner received 134 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Stevenson | Stevenson argues evidence is insufficient | Quincy not credible; defense theory that crack was not Stevenson's | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could convict |
| Reasonableness of sentencing disparity | Disparity with Woods undermines guideline goals | Disparity justified by cooperation and differing culpability | Not plain error; disparity justified; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.2011) (standard for sufficiency reviewing the record in light of the evidence presented)
- United States v. Mandel, 647 F.3d 710 (7th Cir.2011) (credibility of witnesses is for the jury to judge)
- United States v. Boisture, 563 F.3d 295 (7th Cir.2009) (court defers to jury credibility decisions; cross-examination and instructions matter)
- United States v. Bailey, 510 F.3d 726 (7th Cir.2007) (witness credibility and drug-use testimony can be relied upon with proper cautionary instructions)
- United States v. Wilson, 31 F.3d 510 (7th Cir.1994) (conviction upheld even if testimony is from an admitted liar or opportunistic witness)
- United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir.2009) (cooperation and other factors can justify differing sentences)
- United States v. Shamah, 624 F.3d 449 (7th Cir.2010) (cooperation with government can justify sentence disparities)
- United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.2009) (differences among conspirators with varying cooperation histories not unreasonable)