United States v. Green, No. 15-1734 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Green and Hayes were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, as well as possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Hayes was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; defendants failed to establish that they had withdrawn from the conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to convict Hayes for being a felon in possession of a firearm; even assuming that defendants are correct that the delay in securing a search warrant was a Fourth Amendment violation, admission of evidence from the cellular phones was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; as to the third conviction, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, the court found that the government introduced sufficient evidence independent of that introduced pursuant to the May 14, 2014 search such that any error in the admission of that evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning its sanctions and allowing in some evidence of what was recovered in the May 14, 2014 search; and the district court did not err in refusing a jury instruction or argument on justification under these facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Ketchmark, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; defendants failed to establish their defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Hayes' conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm; even if the district court erred in denying defendant Green's motion to suppress text messages found two years after his phone was first seized, the error was harmless in light of the other evidence of his guilt; similarly, with respect to the defendants' challenge to seizure of weapons, the evidence was sufficient without the evidence from the contested search to support the jury's finding they engaged in conspiracy to distribute meth and that they possessed the gun in furtherance of the drug conspiracy; the district court fashioned a proper remedy - excluding some evidence - where the government delayed the search of defendants' phones and computers; no error in refusing defendants' request for a jury instruction on a justification defense.
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.