United States v. Travis Broeker, 27 F.4th 1331

Background:

T.Z. overdosed and died after ingesting fentanyl; paramedics first revived him on Feb 28 but he died Mar 1. Toxicology showed fentanyl (and other drugs); medical examiner concluded fentanyl caused death.
Items found in T.Z.’s room included half-clear/half-black capsules and a hollowed rubber ball with white powder; forensic testing detected fentanyl in those items.
Texts on T.Z.’s phone linked him to a contact labeled “Travis Perkey” (number registered to Pamela Barton). Undercover officers used T.Z.’s phone to arrange buys; Barton sold capsules containing fentanyl/heroin and Broeker arrived later and was arrested with the 0523 phone.
Broeker admitted to selling fentanyl to T.Z. the evening of Feb 28 and to sending Barton to sell to undercover officers; capsules sold matched those found in T.Z.’s room.
A jury convicted Broeker of (1) distribution of fentanyl resulting in death and (2) conspiracy to distribute fentanyl; district court denied his Rule 29 motion and Rule 33 new-trial motion. This appeal challenges sufficiency/causation and several evidentiary rulings.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting Broeker’s causation and other arguments, but remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment description of Count 1.

Issues:

Issue	Government's Argument	Broeker's Argument	Held
Causation / sufficiency of evidence for §841(b)(1)(C) death enhancement	Evidence shows Broeker sold fentanyl to T.Z. shortly before death; items and texts tie the fentanyl to Broeker; toxicology and examiner show fentanyl could independently cause death	Sale proximity and matching capsules are insufficient; no direct proof the substance Broeker sold was the fentanyl that killed T.Z.	Affirmed. A reasonable jury could find the fentanyl Broeker distributed was an independently sufficient or but‑for cause of death (Burrage satisfied).
Motion for new trial (weight of evidence)	Verdict is supported by overwhelming evidence; district court properly weighed evidence and credibility and did not abuse discretion	Even if minimally sufficient, evidence preponderates against verdict warranting new trial	Affirmed. Rule 33 relief denied—district court did not abuse its broad discretion.
Credibility of medical examiners / complaint about law‑enforcement input to pathologists	Toxicology and postmortem exams were performed and explained; no record evidence of impropriety; credibility for jury/district court to assess	Medical examiners routinely rely on law‑enforcement information; their independence and probability standards render their conclusions unreliable	Not reached on appeal (argument raised first time on appeal) and, to the extent raised, court found no support for impropriety; examiners’ testimony admissible and credible for jury.
Exclusion of Exhibit B and limits on cross‑examination (text messages / lorazepam source)	District court found those items irrelevant or prejudicial; proper evidentiary rulings	Excluded texts and limited cross sought to show alternative sources of drugs and challenge linkage to Broeker	Not reached on appeal (not preserved below); appellate court declined to consider these claims for the first time on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (but‑for causation required for §841(b)(1) death enhancement)
United States v. Aungie, 4 F.4th 638 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard for reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence denials of Rule 29 motions)
United States v. Gonzalez, 826 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2016) (verdict sustained unless no reasonable interpretation of evidence supports conviction)
United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1980) (district court may weigh evidence and assess credibility on a Rule 33 motion)
Manning v. Jones, 875 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for denial of new trial)
United States v. Harriman, 970 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2020) (Rule 33 motions disfavored; relief reserved for exceptional cases)