United States v. Dunn, No. 11-3255 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendants appealed their convictions for conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendants Dunn, Westbrook, and Moore also appealed their convictions for using a communication facility to facilitate cocaine distribution. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the cocaine conspiracy convictions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions in limine to exclude late-disclosed witnesses where defendants made no showing of prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial where a witness's testimony incriminating Defendant Dunn was not disclosed in the proffer statement produced to defense counsel because any prejudice to defendants or benefit to the government was small; the district court did not plainly err when it authorized the extension of the wiretap; Dunn had actual notice of the recorded calls within 90 days of the wiretap's termination and failed to show prejudice; and the district court did not err in denying Dunn's motion to suppress or his motion in limine regarding a special agent's failure to properly identify Dunn as the speaker on the recorded calls. The court disposed of defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conspiracy convictions; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions in limine to exclude late-disclosed government witnesses as there was no showing the lateness of the disclosure caused any prejudice; when a witness testified to information not disclosed in the proffer statements provided defendants, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying their motion for a mistrial; defendant Dunn's challenges to wiretap evidence rejected; any error in permitting witnesses to testify before the grand jury regarding calls was rendered harmless by the petit jury verdict; speedy trial argument rejected; searches of a garage and a car found on the premises described in the warrant were lawful; no error in imposing a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) for defendant Dunn's possession of a firearm in connection with the drug offense; no error in imposing the statutory minimum sentence on Dunn based on his Missouri drug conviction; defendant Dunn's challenge to a forfeiture ruling was untimely; district court did not commit plain error in submitting to the jury only the drug quantity alleged in defendant Miles' indictment or in imposing a sentence consistent with the jury's quantity finding; claim the prosecutor engaged in improper rebuttal during the closing argument for defendant Westbook's case rejected; limits on cross-examination of an agent did not deny defendant Moore a fair trial.
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.