United States v. Thompson; United States v. DeLeo; United States v. Baggett; United States v. Thompson, No. 11-1765 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendants appealed their criminal offenses connected to illegal gambling, drug trafficking, firearms, and marriage fraud. Defendants raised several additional issues on appeal. The court affirmed on all issues except for Defendant Thompson's double jeopardy claim. On that issue, the court found a double jeopardy violation and reversed Thompson's charge on count five in case number 11-2604, of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress wiretap evidence as the affidavit supplied in support of the government's application for the wiretap established probable cause to believe five or more persons were engaged in illegal betting operations; application also established the necessity for the wiretap; no error in denying a Franks hearing as the material defendant contends was improperly omitted did not negate the district court's finding of probable cause; no error in denying motion to sever; evidentiary challenges rejected; officers reasonably believed a storage room was appurtenant to the apartment covered by a search warrant and evidence seized from the storage room was properly admitted; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not sufficiently developed for consideration on direct appeal; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Baggett's conviction for aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a weapon, making a false statement to a federal agent and conspiring to obtain ammunition for a felon; the district court's grant of defendant Thompson's motion for judgment of acquittal on a count was an acquittal for purposes of double jeopardy, and the court could not reverse its holding and permit the count to go to the jury; while defendant Thompson's conviction on the count is reversed, the matter does not need to be remanded for resentencing because the sentence on this count is shorter than his other concurrent sentence and the vacated conviction does not affect the sentence.
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.