United States v. Pendleton, No. 15-2865 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to order disclosure of the co-conspirator's presentence reports, and the court held that defendant is not entitled to relief under Brady v. Maryland; because defendant failed to show justifiable dissatisfaction, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for new counsel; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it proceeded with the venire panel after one venireperson said that she was familiar with defendant's family and their distribution of methamphetamine; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that defendant was involved in the assault of a co-conspirator where the evidence was relevant and the district court gave mitigating instructions; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's money laundering conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for disclosure of his co-conspirators' presentence reports after it examined them and determined they contained no exculpatory information; in any event, nondisclosure did not prejudice defendant as he was able to attack the co-conspirators' credibility with other evidence (including their admissions they cooperated for more favorable treatment) and because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming; no error in denying defendant's motion for appointment of new counsel where counsel was performing adequately and any breakdown in communications was the result of defendant's unwillingess to communicate; the district court took prompt action to cure any taint from a venireperson's errant comments (outside knowledge of defendant's criminal activity), including inquiries to the jurors and curative instructions, and defendant was not entitled to a new trial on his claim the comments deprived him of a fair and impartial jury;evidence from a co-conspirator that defendant assaulted her and admission of photos depicting her injuries was relevant to the issue of defendant's control of the conspirators; additionally,the court gave an instruction mitigating any possibility the jury would convict defendant of the drug crimes in the case solely based on his assault of the witness; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for money laundering.
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.