United States v. Johnson
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
450 F.3d 366 (2006)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Reginald Dinez Johnson and Carl Alexander (defendants) for narcotics crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841, and conspiracy to commit such crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. The federal district court trial evidence established that, for seven or eight years, a group of conspirators illegally purchased and transported drugs from California to St. Louis, Missouri, where they sold the drugs to retail buyers. Although neither Johnson nor Alexander was an original member of the conspiracy, several conspirators testified that, later, Johnson often rode with them in a chase vehicle to escort a courier truck carrying drug-purchase money or drugs across the country. Jason Miller testified that Brown once helped unload a courier truck. Two witnesses testified that, at least twice, Alexander joined the conspirators in flying to California or Texas to make drug buys. Brown and Alexander testified that they were merely present on these occasions, and neither knew of, nor participated in, the conspiracy. The jury convicted all four defendants. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Brown and Alexander argued that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wollman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
