Opinion ID: 2648112
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bifurcation of Conspiracy

Text: Wells asserts the evidence shows he only conspired with, if anyone, Joker. That is, Wells asserts the evidence establishes two distinct conspiracies existed: one between Joker and Gray that lasted until July 10, 2009, and a second between Joker and Wells that commenced shortly thereafter. Because one cannot conspire solely with government informants or agents, United States v. Barboa, 777 F.2d 1420, 1422 (10th Cir. 1985), Wells asserts his conspiracy conviction must be 23 Wells contests this point, arguing he spoke about Joker to Officer Mike Parsons on July 29, 2009. As noted by the government, however, Wells’s interactions with Parsons are highly unusual. In fact, a fair reading of the wiretap evidence reveals Wells contacted Parsons solely for the purpose of eliciting Parsons’s aid in detaining Jokers’s second customer during the Cherokee Inn Casino sting. In a wiretapped call between Wells and Gray, Wells indicated he regretted involving Parsons because Parsons wanted to arrest Joker and Wells had to actively dissuade Parsons from doing so. Although Wells argues his actions in this regard amount to a legitimate judgment call as to how best to deal with his confidential informant, the utter absence of record evidence showing Wells and Gray had a plan to use Joker for a higher purpose allowed the jury to reasonably conclude Wells’s actions were not legitimate. -29- reversed. Wells’s contention in this regard does not stand up to an examination of the trial record. Although their respective levels of personal interaction with Joker ebbed and flowed over the course of the conspiracy, a rational juror could find Wells and Gray actively conspired during the relevant time period. In rejecting the bifurcation argument in its order denying judgment of acquittal, the trial court concluded: Gray initially was quite involved in the proposed activities. While he subsequently indicated at one point that he was not “playing,” at least at that particular time, he still participated in discussions with [Wells] concerning the location of the proposed transactions, how to prevent Joker from being compromised, and other aspects of the activities that a jury could find to constitute active participation in planning. District Ct. Order of Aug. 23, 2011, Docket No. 271, at 3-4. The record bears out the district court’s conclusion. On July 10, 2009, the date on which Wells asserts Gray terminated Gray’s independent conspiracy with Joker, Gray informed Wells he had promised to intercede on Joker’s behalf should he get “hung up.” That same day, Wells allayed Joker’s fear he had somehow angered Gray by telling Joker “[Gray] and I don’t work that way.” Three days later, Gray called Wells to discuss Joker’s visit to Tulsa; they agreed they would not interfere, resulting in “[b]usiness as usual for [Joker].” More than two weeks later, Wells and Gray spoke twice—the first call initiated by Wells and the second call by Gray. They discussed the fact Joker had brought two pounds of methamphetamine to Tulsa -30- and considered how best to arrest Joker’s buyer without hurting Joker. Furthermore, during the midst of the Cherokee Inn Casino sting, Joker called Gray and left a voicemail indicating it was important that Joker speak to Wells. Shortly thereafter, Wells called Joker. All this demonstrates Wells and Gray continued to cooperate as to the venture with Joker, regardless of who took the lead in communicating with Joker. The evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to establish a single conspiracy during the relevant time period.