United States v. Marcus Nelson, No. 21-2683 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted Defendant n of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to a term of 300 months in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction. Defendant challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the evidence presented by the government was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty on both counts. Overall, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the conclusion that Defendant had a role in the drug conspiracy and possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.
Defendant also argued the district court erred in allowing a witness to read a text message from his phone while on the stand when that message had not been disclosed to the defense ahead of trial. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness to read the undisclosed text message on the stand. The court allowed Defendant’s counsel to review the text message over lunch. And Defendant’s counsel did not ask for more time to view the message, ask for a continuance, or even renew his objection following that review. While this process is not what Rule 16 envisions or requires, the defense did have an opportunity to examine the text message and cross-examine the witness about it at trial.
Court Description: [Menendez, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and for possession of the drug with intent to distribute; under the circumstances presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the government to admit an undisclosed text message from defendant's phone; defendant was not substantially prejudiced by introduction of the text message.
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.