United States v. Walls
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
225 F.3d 858 (2000)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
FedEx notified agents with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that two boxes being delivered to Chicago, Illinois, tested positive for cocaine. Federal agents tracked the packages to a residence belonging to Daisy Walls (defendant). Walls signed for the packages and handed them to Sharee Williams (defendant). Williams took the packages to her residence down the street. Walls and Williams were subsequently arrested. Walls denied knowing what was inside the packages. Williams consented to a search of her apartment and basement. In the basement, DEA agents found marijuana, cash, and paraphernalia used to weigh and bag cocaine. A handgun was found in Williams’s bedroom. The United States (plaintiff) charged Walls and Williams with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute substances containing cocaine. Williams was separately charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Williams said the handgun and drugs belonged to her roommate, Samuel Simmons. After a trial, the government sought a vicarious liability jury instruction. The government argued that if Williams did not possess the gun found in the apartment, then it belonged to Simmons. Walls and Williams were convicted, and both appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rovner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.