United States v. Burkley
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
513 F. 3d 1183 (2008)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Derrick A. Bailey (defendant) for firearm and drug offenses, including possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The trial evidence established that after stopping Bailey's car for erratic driving, police officers detected a strong odor of marijuana, and searched the car. Two cellphones in the car rang constantly during the search. The officers found two guns and ammunition, 157 grams of marijuana, a digital scale, and $242,250 in cash, most of which was shrink-wrapped in cellophane. Courts have held all such items to be indicia or tools of the drug-trafficker's trade. Expert witnesses testified that Bailey had no legitimate source of income, that 157 grams of marijuana is an amount more consistent with distribution than with personal use, and that drug traffickers commonly possess more than one cellphone. Bailey explained the large amount of cash as money he had been given so that he could book rap groups, but he could not precisely identify who gave him the money. Bailey also claimed that the marijuana was solely for his personal medicinal use. The jury convicted Bailey, and his appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals focused on the sufficiency of the evidence on the possession-with-intent charge.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.