United States v. Delacruz, No. 16-2066 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine (Count One), and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (Count Two). The court held that a reasonable jury could find the government proved the single conspiracy charged in the indictment; defendant could not show prejudice from any multiple-conspiracy variance; defendant's claim that he was prejudiced because the indictment denied him adequate notice of the evidence against him was without merit; the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in not giving a more specific unanimity instruction for Count Two; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where there was overwhelming evidence to support the verdict on each count and the court declined to second-guess the district court's evaluation of witness credibility; and defendant was not entitled to new counsel where lack of communication results from a defendant's refusal to speak with counsel, rather than counsel's ineffectiveness.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to establish the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and there was not a fatal multiple-conspiracy variance between the indictment and the proof; the court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for a more specific unanimity instruction on the count charging use of a firearm in furtherance of the drug conspiracy; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; no error in denying pretrial motions for substitution of counsel as the lack of communication giving rise to the motion resulted from defendant's refusal to speak with counsel rather than counsel's ineffectiveness, and defendant's "stonewalling" does not entitle him to new counsel.
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.