United States v. Taylor; United States v. Slagg, No. 10-3369 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThis case concerned a loosely knit, non-hierarchical collection of persons who engaged in a series of transactions involving distribution-quantities of methamphetamine in and around Bismarck, North Dakota, from late 2008 to early 2009. Two defendants, Donavan Slagg and Gregory Taylor, were convicted of participating in a drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy and appealed their convictions. The court held that a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Slagg was a knowing participant in the drug conspiracy and therefore, the district court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and likewise did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant him a new trial. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying Slagg's motion for judgment of acquittal and that it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Slagg a new trial where the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to convict him of the money laundering conspiracy. The court further held that the totality of the evidence against Taylor was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give Taylor's proposed jury instruction regarding the buyer-seller relationship; Taylor waived his claim regarding the admittance of an alleged "mug shot" photograph of himself; and the district court did not err in entering an order of forfeiture.
Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant Slagg's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; evidence supported the existence of a single conspiracy, and there was no variance between the indictment and the proof at trial; evidence was also sufficient to support Slagg's conviction for conspiracy to launder money; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Taylor's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; district court did not err in rejecting his request for a "buyer-seller" instruction; no error in forfeiting funds.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.