United States v. Troy McRath
20-6025
| 6th Cir. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- McRath was a street-level methamphetamine dealer who regularly bought from Robert Leeper’s California-to-Tennessee distribution network.
- A grand jury charged McRath with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine.
- Law enforcement seized ~60 pounds (≈27,000 g) of high-purity (95–100%) meth tied to Leeper’s operation; multiple coconspirators testified about transactions with McRath.
- During investigation McRath hit a confidential informant, stole cash and monitoring devices, fled from police on a bike, was arrested, and made recorded jail calls warning a coconspirator.
- McRath did not present a defense at trial; the jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him under the Guidelines based on 150–200 g of actual meth.
- On appeal McRath challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to quantity/purity, (2) admission of evidence about the robbery/flight, (3) the Guidelines drug-quantity calculation, and (4) his trial counsel’s effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | McRath’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that conspiracy involved ≥50 g actual meth | No rational factfinder could find he knowingly joined a conspiracy involving ≥50 g; mid-level dealers may have diluted the drug | Seizure of ~27,000 g of high-purity meth plus coconspirator testimony placed McRath in the chain linking him to that supply | Affirmed — viewed in government’s favor, evidence supports knowing participation in conspiracy involving at least 50 g; dilution speculative and unsupported |
| Admissibility of evidence about robbery and flight (Rule 404(b)/403) | Evidence was improper character evidence and unfairly prejudicial | Acts were intrinsic to the charged conspiracy and showed consciousness of guilt; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Affirmed — evidence was intrinsic and highly probative; no Rule 403 abuse |
| Sentencing drug-quantity/purity (Guidelines) | The drugs attributed to McRath could have been diluted mixtures, not "actual meth" | No record evidence of dilution; testimony about "breaking down" referred to dividing quantity, not lowering purity | Affirmed — Guidelines quantity as actual meth supported by record |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to (a) robbery/flight evidence and (b) sufficiency/purity objections | Counsel should have objected; failure prejudiced defense | Objections would have been meritless, so counsel not ineffective under Strickland | Affirmed — no deficient performance because objections lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Childs, 539 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error review requires obvious or clear error)
- United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144 (6th Cir. 1995) (acts intrinsic to the charged offense are not excluded by Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Buchanan, 213 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 2000) (presence and conduct at a controlled buy can be intrinsic evidence)
- United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2011) (evidence that "completes the story" of the offense may be intrinsic)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (probative value vs. prejudicial effect under Rule 403)
- United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d 1125 (6th Cir. 1989) (flight and related acts can show consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186 (6th Cir. 1994) (Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)