U.S. v. Schleicher, 88-5154

Citation862 F.2d 1320
Decision Date08 December 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-5154,88-5154
Parties27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 395 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Terry Paul SCHLEICHER, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Mark W. Peterson, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Jon M. Hopeman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Terry Schleicher appeals his conviction of one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of one-half ounce of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 (1982), and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 (1982).

Between March 24 and June 2, 1987, Minneapolis police and agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency conducted drug transactions with Bruce Workcuff. Authorities knew David Hiben supplied Workcuff with cocaine, and that Workcuff distributed it. Authorities did not know who supplied Hiben.

On June 4, a surveillance of Workcuff revealed Hiben was in Schleicher's neighborhood when he distributed cocaine to Workcuff. On July 13, just before Hiben distributed cocaine to an undercover officer, officers saw Hiben park his vehicle behind Schleicher's house. Several other vehicles were parked behind Schleicher's house and all were registered to Schleicher. No one observed Hiben go into the house, but he was seen leaving the house, getting into his car and driving to meet an undercover agent to whom he distributed cocaine.

On September 24, Workcuff led police to a bar where Hiben was observed meeting with Schleicher. Schleicher was not drinking anything, and when Hiben arrived the two men stepped away from the bar and talked for about thirty seconds. Hiben and Schleicher then walked out the rear door together. A police officer observed the two getting into a car and driving out of the parking lot behind the bar. The officer lost sight of the car for less than a minute and drove around to the front of the bar. He then saw Hiben walking across the street to Workcuff's car where Hiben told Workcuff "I just picked it up," and instructed Workcuff to follow him to a third person's house where Hiben would cut the cocaine. Hiben entered the house and then fifteen minutes later came out and delivered cocaine to Workcuff. Hiben was arrested and the house was searched. The search produced no money, no packaging and cutting material, and no other drugs, except a small amount on one person in the house.

On November 3, 1987, Schleicher was arrested at his residence. The officers searched his house with his consent and found several metric scales and weights, firearms and a paper on which telephone numbers were written, two of which were Hiben's.

Schleicher was tried by a jury in federal district court. 1 He was convicted on March 11, 1988, of both counts of aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute. Schleicher claims the trial court erroneously admitted co-conspirator testimony and evidence of other crimes (the June 4 and July 13 transactions) and without this evidence his conviction rests upon insufficient evidence and cannot stand. In the alternative, Schleicher requests a new trial. We now affirm.

Rule 801(d)(2)(E)

Schleicher alleges the trial court erred in admitting in evidence statements by Workcuff and Hiben about prior transactions involving Schleicher as declarations of coconspirators. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Schleicher claims because the government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed involving Schleicher, Workcuff, and Hiben, statements made by Hiben or Workcuff are inadmissible.

Although the evidence of the conspiracy is mainly circumstantial the trial court may look to conduct of the alleged conspirators and attending circumstances to establish the existence of an illicit agreement. United States v. Pintar, 630 F.2d 1270, 1275 (8th Cir.1980). Considering the overall evidence, summarized here, there was clear evidence of the conspiracy and of Schleicher's participation in it. The fact that some of the conversations took place prior to Schleicher's criminal conduct of September 24 is immaterial. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the conversations under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

Rule 404(b)

Schleicher also claims that even if the statements of other crimes were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), they were erroneously admitted under Rule 404(b). Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). He argues that because the other crimes were not established by clear and convincing evidence and the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value this evidence should not have been admitted.

The Supreme Court recently rejected the requirement that the court must make a preliminary finding that the government has established the "other acts" by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Huddleston v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). The standard to be applied is whether the jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • United States v. Streb
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • August 10, 2020
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • September 9, 1989
    ...adopted by federal courts addressing similar offenses. See United States v. Rivera, 872 F.2d 507 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Schleicher, 862 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Prati, 861 F.2d 82 (5th In Delaware, the only reported case testing the application of 11 Del.C. § 521......
  • State v. Monroe, ID No. 0601021343 (Del. Super. 5/14/2010), ID No. 0601021343.
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • May 14, 2010
    ...Cir. 1989); U.S. v. Flores Perez, 849 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988); U.S. v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1988); U.S. v. Schleicher, 862 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 160. U.S. v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288, 295 (3d Cir. 1999). 161. Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691 (1988); see 29 Am.Jur......
  • United States v. Regenwether, No. CR 00-3048-MWB (N.D. Iowa 5/11/2001)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • May 11, 2001
    ...was the actor. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501-02, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); United States v. Schleicher, 862 F.2d 1320, 1322 & n. 2. (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1058, 109 S.Ct. 1326, 103 L.Ed.2d 594 Id. at 1205. Here, this standard is satisfied ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT