United States v. Kieffer Simmons, No. 22-2179 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted co-defendants K.S and T.H of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Both challenged several district court rulings, and T.H. appealed his conviction.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that K.S. argued that, instead of co-Defendant’s testimony, the court should have admitted co-Defendant’s letter under the residual hearsay exception. The court explained the residual exception is to “be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” To fall within the exception, the statement must be “supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.” The district court concluded that the letter was not trustworthy. Although the court did not explain how it reached its conclusion, its “discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial.”
T.H. argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The evidence established that the middleman bought methamphetamine from K.H. and sold it to the CI. The CI testified to arranging the buy, and the middleman’s phone records showed calls with T.H. on the day of the purchase. After the middleman bought methamphetamine from someone in the white S.U.V., officers identified T.H. as the driver. The plastic bag the middleman later sold the CI had fingerprints from all three men. Additionally, the jury heard testimony from K.T. and D.S. that T.H. sold drugs in the same car and the same location as the controlled buy. This evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy conviction.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Grasz and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. District courts lack authority to compel the government to request immunity for a defense witness; nor did the court have authority to grant immunity on defendant's request; the district court did not err in finding that a letter defendant asked the court to admit in lieu of the defense witness's testimony was inadmissible hearsay; the district court did not err in denying defendant Simmons's request for a multiple-conspiracies instruction; the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant Hambrick's conspiracy conviction; it was not plain error to admit testimony from two witnesses as the evidence fully supported the conviction without the challenged testimony.
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.