Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/576-f-3d-661-597124326
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 01:43:36
Document Index: 722553820

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 922']

576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2009), 08-2979, United States v. Morris - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 597124326
Docket Nº: 08-2979.
Citation: 576 F.3d 661
Party Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie D. MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney: Mark Karner, Attorney (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jessica L. Bailey, Attorney (argued), Rana Barakat, Attorney (argued), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel: Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2009)
Lonnie D. MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-2979.
Mark Karner, Attorney (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jessica L. Bailey, Attorney (argued), Rana Barakat, Attorney (argued), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
In late May 2005, authorities began investigating suspected drug trafficking activities at 707 Albert Avenue, a residence on the west side of Rockford, Illinois. The investigation was conducted by the Metro Narcotics Unit, a joint enterprise between the Rockford Police Department and the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department.
Sergeant Marc Welsh supervised the MNU.
Between five and ten times from May 22 to June 2, Richard Gambini, a detective with the MNU, surveilled 707 Albert. The house was leased by Tamica Wilson, who lived there with her two children. On at least five occasions, Gambini observed the defendant Lonnie Morris, on or near the premises. Morris was frequently seen coming and going in a maroon-colored 1995 Chrysler Cirrus.
Early in the morning on June 2, Gambini and a colleague searched trash bags that were left on the curb in front of 707 Albert. Inside, they found approximately three hundred plastic sandwich bags with the bottoms cut off; remnants of a package of Dormin, an over-the-counter sleeping pill commonly used to " cut," or dilute, heroin for sale; and a handful of documents sent to Lonnie Morris's attention at a different address.
Police also discovered pertinent evidence inside the Chrysler Cirrus. In the door's handle well, Detective Gambini found a small plastic bag, inside of which were two
smaller plastic bags. The two smaller plastic bags contained an off-white powdery substance, later identified as a total of 0.09 grams of a mixture containing heroin. Underneath the bag with the heroin, Gambini found another plastic bag, in which he recognized four pink Dormin tablets. Like many cars, the Cirrus had a storage compartment in the lower portion of the driver's door. In that compartment, Gambini observed a document and a Jennings .22-caliber handgun. Further inspection revealed that Morris's name was on the document.
Following the search, Detective Gambini and a colleague, Detective Rossow, escorted Morris to jail. According to Gambini's testimony, Morris told the two detectives while in transit: " This case is dropped. You had no probable cause to get in my house."
In February 2006, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Morris with three offenses. Count One alleged that Morris knowingly and intentionally possessed, with intent to distribute, 23.7 grams of a substance containing heroin, thereby violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count Two charged Morris, a convicted felon, with possessing a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1). Count Three averred that Morris had knowingly possessed a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime alleged in Count One, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Morris was arrested shortly thereafter.
Morris presents three arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, he argues (1) that the government failed to prove that he constructively possessed either the drugs or the gun, and (2) that if he did possess the gun, the evidence did not support the jury's finding that such possession was " in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime. Second, and relatedly, Morris asserts that the district court erred in refusing to give a proffered jury instruction defining the term " in furtherance of." Finally, Morris challenges the district court's decision to admit Sergeant Welsh's expert testimony concerning distributable quantities of heroin. Although we see some merit in these challenges, none are ultimately persuasive.
A defendant attacking the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him
" ‘ faces a nearly insurmountable hurdle.’ " United States v. Pulido, 69 F.3d 192, 205 (7th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Teague, 956 F.2d 1427, 1433 (7th Cir.1992)). To succeed, Morris must show that, based on the evidence presented at trial, no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551, 555 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937, 942 (7th Cir.1998) (" Only if the record is devoid of evidence from which a jury could find guilt will we reverse." ). In conducting this analysis, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir.2000).
Morris's initial sufficiency of the evidence arguments relate to his possession of the drugs and firearm. His remaining challenge is that the evidence was insufficient to find that he possessed the firearm " in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime.
All three counts on which the jury convicted Morris-possessing heroin with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, see id. § 922(g)(1)-involve one common element: possession. Morris now challenges this element with respect to each of his three convictions.
For each of these offenses, possession can be either actual or constructive. See ...