U.S. v. Madrid

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Ruiz-Estrada

    312 F.3d 398 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 48 times
    Admitting other act evidence to rebut defendant's defense that he was "merely present" in an apartment that contained evidence of a drug conspiracy

    Juries can, and sometimes do, return inconsistent verdicts. See United States v. Madrid, 224 F.3d 757, 762 (8th Cir. 2000) (the jury acquitted defendant of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, but convicted him of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.). Based on the evidence adduced, a reasonable jury could infer Ruiz-Estrada entered into an agreement with Hernandez-Dominguez to stash drugs, drug paraphernalia and drug proceeds inside the apartment. We find the record contains ample evidence to support the conspiracy conviction.

  2. U.S. v. Covey

    232 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2000)   Cited 24 times
    Upholding finding that an accountant used special skills in preparing routine loan documents in order to effect a money laundering scheme

    Covey argues that the district court should have given the jury an instruction on willfulness in conjunction with Count I, an instruction defining "attempt" in conjunction with Counts I and II, an instruction that a guilty verdict on each count of the indictment must be supported by unanimity, a good faith instruction, and an instruction that an overt act was an essential element of Count I. The district court did not err in omitting any of these instructions. No willfulness instruction was required because the requisite state of mind for both conspiracy and money laundering is knowledge. See, e.g., United States v. Madrid, 224 F.3d 757, 761-62 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Jensen, 69 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir. 1995). Covey was not charged with attempt to commit money laundering so it was not necessary to instruct on attempt.