United States v. Polk, No. 12-1303 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that sufficient evidence established that defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy; sufficient evidence supported a finding that defendant could reasonably foresee that the conspiracy involved 1,000 or more marijuana plants; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exclude a certain witness's testimony; the district court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of the witness regarding a police interview in an unrelated matter; and the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant safety-valve relief where he failed to truthfully provide the government all information and evidence that he had concerning the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal case and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and possess 1,000 or more marijuana plants as the government showed he intentionally joined the conspiracy and it was reasonably foreseeable that the conspiracy would involve more than 1,000 plants; no discovery violation occurred with respect to the government's disclosure of a police interview with a government witness, and the district court did not err in declining to exclude the witness's testimony; district court imposed a reasonable limit on defendant's cross-examination of the witness because the questioning involved an unrelated matter; the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for safety-valve sentencing where defendant failed to truthfully provide the government all information and evidence that he had concerning the offense.
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.