Opinion ID: 558873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction of Post-February 9, 1989 Evidence of Drug Trafficking

Text: 3 Mr. Lockhart argues that substantial evidence was introduced during the trial that indicated the defendant left the scene of any alleged criminal conduct by February 9, 1989, and that the trial judge recognized this by excluding consideration of drug transactions occurring after February 9, 1989, during the sentencing hearing. 4 Assuming for the moment that Mr. Lockhart is correct in asserting that he left the scene of any alleged criminal conduct by February 9, 1989 (an assertion that was controverted by two government witnesses), he has still not met his burden of demonstrating withdrawal from the conspiracy. Under United States v. Parnell, 581 F.2d 1374, 1384 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1076 (1979), [t]he burden of establishing withdrawal is on the defendant, who must show that he or she took affirmative action, either making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his withdrawal in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.... (citations omitted). Citing Parnell, we noted in United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1369 (10th Cir.1989), that mere cessation of activities alone is not enough to show withdrawal from a conspiracy. See also United States v. Brewer, 630 F.2d 795, 800 (10th Cir.1980). 5 Therefore, even leaving aside evidence of his presence in Oklahoma after February 9, 1989, Mr. Lockhart has failed to meet his burden of showing affirmative withdrawal and has argued nothing more than mere cessation of activity. The trial judge, therefore, did not err in allowing the jury to consider the withdrawal question. 6 The trial judge's decision to exclude post-February 9, 1989 evidence for sentencing purposes does not amount to a finding of withdrawal from the conspiracy as of February 9. The judge could have made this decision for a number of reasons that fall within his discretion in the sentencing process.