United States v. Mercer
165 F.3d 1331 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's buyer-seller relationship with a drug source, including vague references to a "partner" or supplier, is insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy without further evidence of an agreement to jointly pursue a criminal objective beyond the sale itself.
Facts:
- On October 3, 1995, a confidential informant asked Carol Miller where he could purchase cocaine.
- Miller referred the informant to David Mercer, providing his address and vouching for him as a trustworthy friend, but she refused to telephone Mercer or accompany the informant.
- On October 5, 1995, Mercer told the informant he was waiting for "my partner" to arrive and for his partner to call "his boy in Tampa" to source the drugs.
- Mercer also stated that if his supplier was too slow, he would go "somewhere else" to get the cocaine.
- On October 6, 1995, Mercer sold 27.98 grams of crack cocaine to the confidential informant for $1,000.
- As part of an unrelated investigation in late January 1996, a different informant introduced an undercover police detective to Mercer.
- Mercer then sold 17.6 grams of crack cocaine to the detective in late January 1996, and an additional 29 grams in February 1996.
Procedural Posture:
- The government filed a superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, charging David Mercer and Carol Miller with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base.
- The indictment also charged Mercer individually with two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Mercer on all counts.
- Mercer's co-defendant, Carol Miller, was acquitted on all counts, including the conspiracy charge.
- The district court sentenced Mercer to a mandatory life sentence for the conspiracy conviction, with concurrent ten-year sentences for the other counts.
- Mercer (Defendant-Appellant) appealed his conspiracy conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the United States as the Plaintiff-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence of a defendant's multiple drug sales to government agents and vague, colloquial references to an unnamed source sufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish a conspiratorial agreement. A conspiracy requires proof of an agreement between two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective, which is distinct from the commission of the substantive offense itself. The government failed to prove anything more than a simple buyer-seller relationship between Mercer and his unnamed sources. The mere fact that Mercer purchased drugs from a supplier and then sold them to others does not, by itself, create a conspiracy. Mercer's colloquial reference to 'my partner' is too vague to establish a criminal partnership, and his statement that he would find another supplier if necessary directly contradicts the idea of a stable, ongoing conspiratorial agreement. The subsequent drug sales, arising from an unrelated investigation, are merely further evidence of distribution, not of a conspiracy.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the distinction between a buyer-seller relationship and a criminal conspiracy in drug distribution cases. The court's decision prevents the government from automatically escalating a substantive distribution charge into a more serious conspiracy charge based solely on the inherent structure of the drug trade. It establishes that to prove conspiracy, prosecutors must present specific evidence of a shared criminal objective and agreement beyond the mere transaction of buying and selling narcotics. This precedent makes it more difficult to secure conspiracy convictions based on vague references or the simple fact that a seller has a source, thereby protecting defendants from severe sentencing enhancements without concrete proof of a conspiratorial agreement.
