U.S. v. Johnson

21 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Thompson

    422 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 244 times
    Stating that an agreement may also "be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs" between a seller and buyer (quoting United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (11th Cir. 1989))

    We disagree. While "the existence of a simple buyer-seller relationship alone does not furnish the requisite evidence of a conspiratorial agreement," United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1359 (11th Cir. 1984), an agreement to distribute drugs "may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to [a] purchaser." United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-6 (11th Cir. 1989). The Government established at trial the existence of a continuing relationship between Mr. Stratton and Ms. Thompson in which Mr. Stratton would supply Ms. Thompson cocaine, the bulk of which she would distribute to customers in Collier County. From this evidence, a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stratton agreed with Ms. Thompson to distribute cocaine and crack.

  2. U.S. v. Roberts

    424 F. App'x 893 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    The jury can infer conspiratorial agreements from the conduct of the participants. United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 1989). Although "the mere existence of a buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to prove that the defendant agreed to the conspiracy," id., we have established that, "where there are repeated transactions buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs, that is sufficient evidence that the participants were involved in a conspiracy to distribute those drugs in the market," Brown, 587 F.3d at 1089 (citing Johnson, 889 F.2d at 1035-36).

  3. U.S. v. Brown

    587 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendants were participants in a conspiracy where the evidence showed that they helped each other "maintain a steady source of illegal drugs . . . sold drugs on credit, for resale, brokered deals for each other, and shared customers and supplies"

    Furthermore, as is well-established in this Circuit, where there are repeated transactions buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs, that is sufficient evidence that the participants were involved in a conspiracy to distribute those drugs in the market. United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-1036 (11th Cir. 1989). In Matthews, this Court held that there was a single large scale conspiracy rather than multiple conspiracies where the drug dealers who all dealt on one street were "mutually interested and involved participants . . . in [that] drug market."

  4. Marshall v. United States

    CASE NO. 2:16-CV-477-WKW [WO] (M.D. Ala. Jun. 29, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    It is not necessary that the defendant "knew all of the details" of the drug distribution conspiracy; "knowledge of the essential objective is sufficient to impose liability." United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (11th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1359 (11th Cir. 1984) ("The knowledge requirement refers simply to knowledge of the essential objective of the conspiracy; a defendant may be found guilty notwithstanding that he did not have knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy or played only a minor role in the total operation."), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Lewis, 492 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2007). Whether a drug transaction or series of transactions constitute a conspiracy — i.e., whether the parties to the sale knew of larger distribution objectives and agreed to join their efforts to make the distribution enterprise possible — is largely dependent on the facts of each case. "The existence of a conspiracy may be demonstrated by circumstantial evidence such as inferences from the conduct of the defendant or circumstances indicating a scheme or plan.

  5. McCart v. State

    765 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    Samuels v. State, 584 So.2d 958, 962 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 584 So.2d 963 (Ala. 1991). "`In addition, it need not be shown that the defendant knew all of the details of the alleged conspiracy as knowledge of the essential objective is sufficient to impose liability.' United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 1989). `Although association alone will not support an inference of conspiracy, association with co-conspirators may be considered as a factor.

  6. United States v. Munoz

    No. 17-13818 (11th Cir. May. 28, 2020)

    With evidence of repeated heroin transactions between Watkins and Pitts, a jury could reasonably infer an agreement to distribute heroin. United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (11th Cir.1989)) (noting that "an agreement to distribute drugs 'may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to [a] purchaser'"). The trial evidence demonstrated that Watkins supplied Pitts an average of two packs of heroin capsules every day, from spring 2015 through mid-August 2015, and Pitts brought Watkins the proceeds of his sales and kept thirty percent for himself.

  7. United States v. Beuschel

    662 F. App'x 818 (11th Cir. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Arguably a reasonable jury could have inferred that Fiore, along with the CS, bought the counterfeit Viagra for the purpose of re-sale, which may support the existence of a conspiracy, but other than the emails from early 2013, the government did not present evidence to establish the existence of a continuing relationship between Fiore and Beuschel or to show what Fiore planned to do with drugs. See Guerra, 293 F.3d at 1286 (stating that "the buyer-seller rule is inapposite to [a] commercial supplier-dealer relationship"); see also United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (11th Cir. 1989) ("In the case of a purchaser of narcotics, we have held that agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser."). Nevertheless, the government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Beuschel conspired with Anderson, the "guy" in Brooklyn, to traffic in counterfeit Viagra.

  8. United States v. Taylor

    631 F. App'x 668 (11th Cir. 2015)

    While the existence of a simple buyer-seller relationship alone is insufficient to prove a conspiratorial agreement, an agreement to enter into a conspiracy may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to a purchaser. United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36. "Where the buyer's purpose is merely to buy, and the seller's purpose is merely to sell, and no prior or contemporaneous understanding exists between the two beyond the sales agreement, no conspiracy has been shown."

  9. United States v. Lynch

    595 F. App'x 943 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Rejecting Lynch's Rule 11 argument that there was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea

    Additionally, it is "well-established in this Circuit" that "where there are repeated transactions buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs," there is "sufficient evidence that the participants were involved in a conspiracy to distribute those drugs in the market." Brown, 587 F.3d at 1089; see also United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that an agreement may also "be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs" between a seller and buyer (quoting United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (11th Cir. 1989))). While "mere presence" during a drug transaction is not enough, such presence is "certainly a factor to consider in determining whether a defendant joined a conspiracy."

  10. U.S. v. Hernandez

    408 F. App'x 313 (11th Cir. 2011)

    When we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a count of conviction, we attach no evidentiary significance to the jury's acquittal of another count. See United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. McLaurn, 580 F.2d 811, 811-12 (5th Cir. 1978). In order to convict a defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute drugs, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an agreement existed between two or more persons to commit a crime and (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined or participated in the conspiracy.