Court Affirms Drug and Firearm Convictions, Laments Current Conspiracy Law (Again)

US v. Dennis: Officers where doing drug surveillance at a shopping plaza when they observed Dennis and his codefendant Guess drive up, speak briefly to the object of the surveillance, then drive away. After Guess (who was driving) ran a stop sign, officers attempted to make a traffic stop, leading do a “high-speed chase” through (among other places) a “Waffle House parking lot.” Along the way, an officer saw the passenger (Dennis) toss a gun and a bag from the car. They were recovered, with the bag containing 33 grams of heroin. Dennis and Guess were caught and charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine (found on Guess’ person) and heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute it, and firearm offenses. Dennis was convicted on all counts at trial (Guess was convicted on the two drug counts) and sentenced to 96 months in prison. 

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Dennis’ convictions. First, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court’s handling of Dennis’ Batson challenge during voir dire when the Government struck the only remaining juror of color. The court concluded that Dennis did not make a prima facie showing under Batson (the other two potential jurors of color had been struck by Guess), but even if he did the court found the Government’s explanation for the strike was not pretextual. The Government had argued it was concerned that the juror was a social worker and might be sympathetic to criminal defendants. It distinguished that juror from a white juror who was also a social worker (but was not struck) by noting that the white juror had been the victim of a crime that involved a highspeed chase, which outweighed concerns about work-related sympathies. Second, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain all of Dennis’ convictions, at least given the applicable standard of review. As in Moody, the court noted its discomfort with the way current conspiracy law allows for convictions that overlap with underlying substantive offenses. Finally, the court held there was no error in the jury being instructed that the Government was not required to utilize any particular investigative techniques, noting that it had “held such instructions proper since 1992.”