Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03375/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03375-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sitha Savatdy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South

Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3375

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United 

* States District Court for

v. * the District of South Dakota.

*

Sitha Savatdy, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 2006

Filed: July 10, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

In February 2004, Sitha Savatdy, a foreign national whose primary language is

Laotian, and three others, were charged in a one-count indictment with conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine. Three were tried together. The fourth, Juan Valadez,

was in custody in another district at the time of trial. After the district court1

 denied

Savatdy's motion to suppress, and admitted statements made by Savatdy while he was

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434
-2-

in police custody, a jury found Savatdy guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams

or more of methamphetamine. During the trial, Savatdy moved for judgment of

acquittal and the court took his motion under advisement specifically as to the

evidence supporting the amount of drugs attributable to Savatdy. One year later, the

district court denied that motion. 

Savatdy appeals from the jury's verdict, the district court's order denying his

motion for judgment of acquittal, and its denial of his motion to suppress statements.

Savatdy presents two issues on appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to

support the conspiracy conviction, and (2) whether the district court erred in refusing

to suppress post-Miranda statements made by Savatdy. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

We state the facts in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. United States

v. Selwyn, 398 F.3d 1064, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005). Savatdy was charged by indictment

for participating in a drug conspiracy with Juan Valadez, Det Khaoone and

Chitprasong Amphavannasouk from February 2003 to July 8, 2003. Another man,

Sirich Hochingnavong ("Ed") was a fifth alleged conspirator, and the only one to

testify at trial. Ed had already been convicted and sentenced to serve 168 months'

imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

The indictment in this case was the product of a lengthy investigation into

methamphetamine distribution in and around Sioux Falls. Although there was

testimony concerning government surveillance of and controlled buys from the others

indicted, as well as information from other government sources on his co-defendants,

there was no evidence of this sort on Savatdy. There was evidence connecting Ed to

two of Savatdy's co-defendants, and Savatdy's primary, if not only, connection to his

co-defendants was through Ed. 

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434
-3-

The evidence against Savatdy included (1) testimony that Ed lived with Savatdy

for approximately eight months in 2001, (2) Ed's testimony that he bought

methamphetamine from Savatdy on one occasion between January 2003 and July

2003, (3) Ed's testimony that he sold methamphetamine to Savatdy, (4) proof that Ed

and Savatdy had over 150 phone conversations during the time period at issue, (5)

Savatdy admitting to making three trips from Sioux Falls to Sioux City to obtain

methamphetamine from co-defendant Valadez, obtaining one ounce on each of the

first two trips and 1/4 pound on the third, and (6) Savatdy taking Ed with him on one

of the trips to Sioux City. The evidence further established that Ed sold

methamphetamine to Savatdy's co-defendants. 

After his arrest, and once at the Sioux Falls Police Department, Savatdy was led

into an interview room in handcuffs, which were removed when he sat down. Savatdy

was clearly in custody, but the parties dispute whether Savatdy waived his Miranda

rights prior to interrogation. The subsequent interrogation was videotaped. Agent

Hummel began the interview by asking routine questions such as Savatdy's name, date

of birth, telephone number and home address. Savatdy responded to each question in

English but hesitated before reciting his address–he had recently moved. Agent

Hummel then advised Savatdy of his Miranda rights, pausing after the recitation of

each right to ask Savatdy if he understood what Agent Hummel was stating, and

repeating those portions Savatdy questioned. For example, after Agent Hummel

stated that Savatdy had the right to counsel, that he had the right to have counsel

present during the interview, and that if he could not afford a lawyer, the government

would appoint a lawyer for him, Savatdy indicated he did not understand. Agent

Hummel proceeded to explain that if Savatdy could not afford a lawyer, the

government would provide one for him. 

Though Savatdy did not sign or initial any document indicating that he

understood his rights or waived his rights, Savatdy ultimately indicated that he

understood each of the rights recited by Agent Hummel. Following the Miranda

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434
-4-

recitation, Agent Hummel began questioning Savatdy about his involvement in the

alleged conspiracy. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Conspiracy

Our standard of review concerning whether the evidence is sufficient to support

a conviction is strict. United States v. Alexander, 408 F.3d 1003, 1008 (8th Cir.

2005). "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conspiracy

conviction, we will affirm if the record, viewed most favorably to the government,

contains substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict, which means evidence

sufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United

States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1026, 1030 (8th Cir. 2006). 

To establish that Savatdy conspired to distribute methamphetamine, the

government must prove: (1) that there was a conspiracy–an agreement to distribute

methamphetamine; (2) that Savatdy knew of the conspiracy; and (3) that Savatdy

intentionally joined the conspiracy. Alexander, 408 F.3d at 1008. "[A] defendant

may be convicted for even a minor role in a conspiracy, so long as the government

proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she was a member of the conspiracy."

Lopez, 443 F.3d at 1030. A conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence;

it need not be proved by direct evidence. Id.

According to the district court, "[t]his case tests the elasticity of criminal

conspiracy law." During deliberations, the jury asked the district court "[i]f we have

decided on the conspiracy [charge] for all & agree on two individuals @ 500 grams

–are then, all three (3) defendants automatically guilty of the same 500 grams due to

conspiracy connection." (Second alteration in original.) The court then gave the

following supplemental instruction:

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434
-5-

If you found that all three Defendants were a part of the same

conspiracy, then each of the three Defendants would be responsible for

500 grams or more of methamphetamine. If the one Defendant was

found to be part of only a separate conspiracy with [Ed], and not part of

a conspiracy with the other two defendants, then you must find that one

Defendant not guilty.

The jury subsequently returned verdicts finding all three defendants guilty of

the conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district

court noted that given its supplemental instruction, the jury could not have found that

the only conspiracy Savatdy was involved in was a separate one with Ed. The district

court did acknowledge, however, that the jury must have accepted Ed's testimony as

truthful in order to support its verdict of conspiracy between the defendants and Ed

because there was limited evidence otherwise to support only a conspiracy among the

three defendants on trial. 

We conclude that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the government,

supports Savatdy's conviction and that he contributed to the conspiracy's success. The

gravamen of the government's case against Savatdy, linking Savatdy to Khaoone and

Amphavannasouk, relies upon Ed's testimony, which the jury deemed credible.

Importantly, even if there were contradicting testimony concerning this connection,

"we are obliged to defer to the jury's determination of the credibility of the witnesses."

Lopez, 493 F.3d at 1031. Likewise, the jury could infer from the statements Savatdy

made to Agent Hummel during interrogation that Savatdy did travel to Sioux City

three times to buy drugs for distribution, and participated in the alleged conspiracy.

Accordingly, we affirm Savatdy's conviction. 

B. Admission of Statements 

Concerning the district court's denial of Savatdy's motion to suppress evidence,

this court reviews the district court's fact finding for clear error and its legal

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434
-6-

conclusions de novo. U.S. v. Annis, 446 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2006). We will

affirm the district court unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an

erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear a

mistake was made. Id. 

The district court reviewed the videotape, as did we, and noted that Savatdy

expressed his understanding of each separate right before Agent Hummel moved to

the next. The court carefully examined the interrogation in light of Miranda

jurisprudence and determined that Savatdy "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently

waived his Miranda rights, and his statements during the interview were voluntary."

The district court's determination was supported by the record and was neither an

erroneous interpretation of applicable law nor clearly mistaken. 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3375 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065434