Opinion ID: 2810258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Fronting3

Text: At Pulgar’s trial, Schmidt changed his story and testified that Pulgar fronted him cocaine. The only example of fronting that Schmidt could remember, though, occurred during a sham deal that he arranged for the DEA. Schmidt, having been arrested one month before Pulgar, had been cooperating with the DEA during that deal. Schmidt testified that Pulgar wanted to drop off cocaine while on his way to traffic court in Lincoln, Illinois, and then pick up the money for the cocaine after his hearing. Pulgar wisely did not want to bring the payment required for the cocaine—over $27,000 in cash—into court with him. So he set up this alternative arrangement with Schmidt to delay payment for a few hours. This is the only concrete example of fronting that the government introduced at trial. As it happens, Pulgar never received the money from that transaction; DEA agents arrested him after he dropped off the cocaine. The jury acquitted Pulgar of this conduct, which formed the basis of the distribution charge in Count 2. Schmidt seemed to vaguely recall other evidence of fronting. He just could not remember when: “I mean there was probably a couple times that he fronted them to me. But like I said, I can’t remember every single time.” Notwithstanding 3 We use the term “fronting” interchangeably with “credit transaction.” 6 No. 14-3503 the vague nature of this testimony, the government assigns it great weight. The government claims it means Pulgar sold large amounts of cocaine to Schmidt, multiple times, on credit—a persuasive combination that has established a drugdistribution conspiracy in other cases. See United States v. Brown, 726 F.3d 993, 1002 (7th Cir. 2013) (observing “multiple, large-quantity purchases on credit” are considered “sufficient proof” of conspiracy), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014). Additionally, the government argues that this evidence is supported by recorded phone calls between Pulgar and Schmidt, where Pulgar at least initially discussed fronting cocaine to Schmidt. The government emphasizes the fact that one of these discussions actually “resulted in a wholesale distribution on credit.” Remarkably though, that discussion, which indeed resulted in an instance of fronting, also resulted in Pulgar’s arrest. For as we mentioned above, it was precipitated by Schmidt’s cooperation with the DEA. The government acknowledged as much during its closing argument, but maintained the example could still count against Pulgar: “You heard evidence of a credit transaction. … [T]he plan was to leave the money behind and pick it up on the way back. Didn’t work out that way, but that was the plan.” Aside from what we just detailed, the government offered no other evidence of credit transactions between Pulgar and Schmidt. So the government turned its focus to other facts that it believed helped prove the conspiracy: returns of cocaine and a burgeoning friendship between Pulgar and Schmidt. No. 14-3503 7