US v. Cardwell: Cardwell and Hinson were convicted after a jury trial of charges related to a murder-for-hire scheme. Hinson was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Hinson and Eric Brown were under investigation for drug trafficking. Brown was arrested and agreed to cooperate with the investigation against Hinson, who soon learned of Brown's status as CI.
Another drug dealer, Thomas Cole, who had previously dealt with Hinson and Cardwell, also agreed to assist investigators after he was arrested. Cole, Hinson, and Cardwell had a meeting in which they discussed the need to kill Brown because of his work with investigators. Cole agreed to do the job, while Cardwell agreed to provide the address and picture of Brown and his wife (who needed to be killed, too) to Cole.
Months passed, during which talks about murdering the Browns continued, but nothing was done. Investigators, frustrated by the lack of progress, had Cole bypass Cardwell deal directly with Hinson. Hinson told Cole where to find the Browns and gave him $1000 "traveling money." A fake news story in the local paper about the disappearance of the Browns convinced Hinson that the deal was done, so he paid the remaining debt to Cole in cash and cocaine.
Police went to Hinson's home to arrest him and during a subsequent search uncovered a firearm. Hinson was Mirandized at his home, but later told investigators on the way to the jail that if he had known the cops were coming he would have gotten the gun and started a gunfight because he would rather die than go to jail.
Hinson and Cardwell challenged their convictions on various grounds, all of which the Fourth Circuit rejected.
First, Hinson argued that the felon in possession charge against him was improperly joined with the murder-for-hire charges and that it should have been severed. The Fourth held that Hinson's possession of the gun, and his statement about using it, was related to the murder-for-hire charges because it indicated that he would have used it to prevent arrest on those charges, analogizing to a felon-in-possession charge based on a gun seized from a robbery suspect shortly following the robbery. In addition the could held that the district court properly denied Hinson's motion to sever because he suffered no prejudice on the murder-for-hire counts from the introduction of the fact of his prior felony on the gun charge. Next, Hinson argued that his statement about what he would do with the gun was introduced in violation of Miranda. The Fourth disagreed, holding that Hinson was given Miranda warnings, admitted that he understood his right to remain silent, and never invoked it.
Cardwell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the two charges of which he was convicted, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder. On the conspiracy charge, the court held that it was not necessary for Cardwell to have performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy as long as some member of the conspiracy did so. On the solicitation charge, the court held that even though Cardwell was eventually bypassed by Cole because the deal to murder the Browns was not materializing, solicitation required only that the defendant persuade another to commit a crime, which Cardwell did.
Both Cardwell and Hinson challenged their sentences under Booker and Hughes and won remands for resentencing.