United States v. Davis, No. 11-3189 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, convicted of a drug offense and money laundering, appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the crimes for which he was charged; the district court did not err in ruling that defendant did not suffer an unconstitutional pre-indictment delay; the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a defense witness' testimony; and the district court did not err in refusing defendant's proposed spoliation instruction. The court rejected defendant's proposition that the district court's failure to give his proposed multiple conspiracies instruction required a new trial. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Juror No. 1's assurance and refusing defendant's request to use an alternate. Finally, the court held that any error in failing to apply the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, retroactively was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal Law and Sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack and cocaine and for money laundering; claim of unconstitutional pre- indictment delay rejected; refusal of defense witness to identify his drug sources on cross-examination justified striking his testimony as his refusal deprived the government of the ability to fully cross examine him by testing his assertion that he had not engaged in drug dealing with defendant; district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction on spoilation of evidence where he failed to show the destroyed videotape was exculpatory or had been destroyed in bad faith; no error in refusing to give defendant's proposed multiple conspiracies instruction; district court did not abuse its discretion n refusing to remove a juror after she disclosed her familiarity with the Assistant U.S. Attorney and a Special Agent witness as she did not answer the voir dire questions about the men in a deliberately dishonest fashion or out of partiality, took immediate steps to alert the court as soon as she recalled past contacts and unequivocally affirmed her ability to be impartial; any error in failing to apply the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively was harmless under the facts of the case. [ August 21, 2012
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.