Opinion ID: 560384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on buyer/seller principle

Text: 35 Defendants object to the instruction given to the jury concerning the impact of a mere buyer/seller relationship on a defendant's membership in the conspiracy. The instruction given was as follows: 36 Mere proof of a buyer/seller relationship between an individual and a member of a drug conspiracy is insufficient to convict a defendant on a charge of conspiracy. In other words, if you believe that an individual defendant was merely a willing purchaser of drugs for his or her own personal consumption and nothing more, that is insufficient evidence to prove his or her membership in the conspiracy. It is the defendants John Suchan and Deborah Cerveny's theory of defense that they were merely purchasers of drugs. 37 On the other hand, if a person purchased drugs from a conspirator for the purpose of reselling the drugs, he or she is a member of the conspiracy if he or she knows the general aims of the conspiracy. 38 The defendants submitted the first paragraph, and the government modified the instruction by adding the italicized portions. The court gave the combined instruction. Defendants focus on the second paragraph, which they claim is contrary to law and misleading because it improperly suggests that membership in a conspiracy could be established without proof of intent to join the conspiracy. 39 We recently approved an instruction quite similar to this one in United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1514 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Usman v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 173, 112 L.Ed.2d 137 (1990). As in Briscoe, the defendants' instruction herein was included, almost verbatim, within the instruction ultimately submitted to the jury. Furthermore, the added portions of the instruction incorporated language taken directly from prior decisions of this court on the buyer/seller issue. The instruction ultimately given to the jury in this case distinguishes clearly between a drug purchase for personal consumption and one for resale, and limits the mere buyer/seller relationship to the former situation. Because the instruction accurately and completely stated the buyer/seller principle in conspiracy law, we hold that it was properly given.