United States v. Cervantes, No. 10-3544 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture more than 1000 marijuana plants. Defendant appealed her convictions contending that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's guilty verdict; the district court erred by ruling that a co-defendant waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by pleading guilty; and defendant was denied the right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington when the district court admitted as substantive evidence statements a second co-defendant made during his plea hearing. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision to find defendant guilty where, among other things, defendant owned the property where the marijuana growing operation was located, leased it to a co-defendant that was also her boyfriend, and purchased a storage shed and various cultivating tools. The court also held that it need not address defendant's second claim regarding her co-defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where the district court's ruling had no effect on her conviction. The court further held that because the second co-defendant was subject to cross-examination at trial, there was no violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to grow marijuana; district court properly admitted a witness's adopted plea colloquy as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) as it was inconsistent with his testimony at trial, and admission of the evidence did not violate her Sixth Amendment rights.
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.