Opinion ID: 783096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of the Kroeger Lab

Text: 16 We review the evidentiary rulings of a district court for abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that its discretion is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial. United States v. Jordan, 260 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). Evidence that a coconspirator participated in acts which furthered the conspiracy constitutes substantive evidence of the conspiracy's existence. Such evidence is probative of the crime charged.... United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908, 915 (8th Cir.2001) (internal citation omitted). 17 Titlbach argues evidence from the Kroeger lab should have been excluded at trial as irrelevant to his charges. Alternatively, Titlbach argues the evidence was unduly prejudicial and confusing to the jury, and should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Titlbach argues the government was unable to link the working methamphetamine lab to him. 18 Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting the Kroeger lab evidence. Law enforcement discovered the Kroeger lab after a fire on May 5, 1998. An Iowa state law enforcement Special Agent, Scott Green (Agent Green), testified Titlbach's business card was found in Kroeger's wallet shortly after the fire. Agent Green also testified an unidentified man left the scene of the fire before the Waterloo Police Department arrived. Bruce testified Titlbach told him Titlbach was at the Kroeger lab during the fire, but left before the fire department arrived. Also, Bruce and Jeff Armstrong testified Titlbach learned to cook methamphetamine from Kroeger using the anhydrous method in late 1997 or early 1998. Agent Aboud testified Titlbach admitted to stealing anhydrous eight or nine times and supplying anhydrous to Kroeger or to Anderson, who also supplied it to Kroeger. Titlbach also admitted to receiving small amounts of methamphetamine from Kroeger for stealing anhydrous. Based on this evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Kroeger lab evidence as relevant and probative.