DRUG CONSPIRACY – Sufficiency of Evidence; Entrapment 
Posted: 1:00 am Mon, March 22, 2010
By admin
1)Where a defendant convicted in a drug conspiracy sought to admit a recording of a post-arrest statement of a co-defendant and a conversation recorded between two other defendants, the District Court properly excluded the evidence because the co-defendant was not a hearsay declarant but a witness at trial, and the conversation was properly excluded as hearsay.
(2)Where witnesses identified a defendant as a member and leader of a drug trafficking operation and the defendant was arrested carrying more than $5,000 and keys to an apartment where drug packaging material was found, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
(3)Where a defendant sought a jury instruction on entrapment, the defendant did not show that he was an unwilling participant who had refused opportunities to enter the drug trade before succumbing to pressure from a government agent, so the court did not err in failing to propose an entrapment instruction. Judgment is affirmed.
| Case Number | 08-3056/08-3265/08-3565/08-3 |
| Case Name | 3U.S. v. Wilder; U.S. v. Smith; U.S. v. Williams; U.S. v. Curry |
| Court | 8th U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS |
| District | Appealed from the Southern District of Iowa |
| Category | DRUG CONSPIRACY |
| Type | CRIMINAL OPINIONS |
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)


POST A COMMENT