United States v. Warren, No. 14-2681 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn an ATF sting, undercover agents would describe a fictitious location where drugs were supposedly stored, and support plans for robbing it. St. Louis confidential informants purchased cocaine from Warren's cousin, Washington, then introduced Washington to undercover agent Zayas, who purchased more cocaine. Zayas claimed that he was a disgruntled drug courier looking for help in robbing a Mexican drug cartel of large amounts of cocaine. Washington introduced Zayas to Warren and Twitty. Everyone agreed to commit the robbery. Zayas showed the others how to operate the hidden compartment of the "trap car." As he did so, ATF officers emerged and arrested them. Searching Warren's car, they found loaded guns. Warren was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy; and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Washington and Twitty pled guilty. The court allowed introduction of Rule 404(b) evidence pertaining to Warren's prior convictions involving controlled substances and firearms, as "other act" evidence of guilt. The court upheld the government’s striking of two black potential jurors: both had failed to respond to voir dire questions. The jury convicted Warren. Rejecting Warren’s argument that "no drugs were ever involved," the court sentence him to 211 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims of entrapment and sentencing entrapment and challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury selection.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Harpool, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to show defendant had not been entrapped as the evidence showed the government simply offered defendant an opportunity to commit a crime and he eagerly embraced it; claim that the use of a fictitious drug-house-robbery scheme was outrageous government conduct had not been raised in a pre-trial motion to dismiss and was waived; no error in admission of evidence of prior convictions under Rule 404(b); Batson challenges rejected; sentencing entrapment claim rejected; cursory assertion of an argument in the opening brief is insufficient under FRAP 28(a)(8)(A) to preserve an issue for appellate review.
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.