Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trio of men linked to an Indianapolis drug trafficking ring failed to sway the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, as the appellate court affirmed Monday a lower court’s convictions and sentencing on methamphetamine distribution-related charges.
According to court records, in early 2018, law enforcement began investigating an Indianapolis drug trafficking organization led by Jshaun Trice.
The investigation led to the indictments of Trice and more than 20 of his associates for crimes including drug conspiracy, possession and distribution.
Antonio McClure and Carlo Payne, two of Trice’s associates, were arrested following an October 2018 drug surveillance operation.
Law enforcement intercepted a phone call between McClure and Trice, during which they spoke in coded language that suggested a drug deal. Officers later observed McClure and Payne meet with Trice and pursued Payne in a high-speed chase during which he threw a sock containing 214.2 grams of meth out of his car window.
Payne and McClure later discussed those events on a recorded jail call. Both were charged as part of the drug conspiracy and with purchasing 50 grams or more of meth from Trice for the purpose of distribution.
The government dropped the conspiracy charges against Payne and McClure.
Both defendants went to trial and were convicted of possession of meth with intent to distribute.
Payne and McClure appealed, arguing that a Black juror had been impermissibly struck, a police detective’s dual-role testimony had not been adequately explained to the jury and the evidence supporting their convictions was legally insufficient.
Eric Bard, another Trice associate, was also involved in the appeal. Bard pleaded guilty to distribution of 50 grams or more of meth and was sentenced by to 262 months in prison.
Bard argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The appellate court affirmed Payne and McClure’s convictions and Bard’s sentence. Judge Thomas Kirsch wrote the opinion for the 7th Circuit.
McClure and Payne argued that the government struck a Black potential juror in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). They argued that the government’s explanation for striking the juror — that he had a brother with a drug dealing conviction — was pretextual because some white jurors who were not stricken also had relatives who had been involved with drugs.
Kirsch wrote that the focus of the pretext inquiry was on what the government actually knew at the time it struck the juror. What it knew, he wrote, was that the juror’s brother had a drug dealing conviction.
“To the district court, this sufficiently differentiated Juror 39’s answer from those of other jurors, and the court adjudged the prosecutor’s demeanor to be sincere and genuine after considering the totality of the circumstances. We accord the court’s credibility determination great deference, and because the government’s reason for striking Juror 39 — that his brother was convicted of drug dealing — was not ‘completely outlandish,’ we have no basis to reverse,” Kirsch wrote, citing United States v. Jones, 224 F.3d 621, 625 (7th Cir. 2000).
McClure and Payne also argued that Detective Jason Hart’s dual-role testimony as a lay and expert witness failed to follow procedures established by the court in United States v. Jett, 908 F. 3d 252 (7th Cir. 2018).
The defendants argued that Hart’s interpretations of the conversations of two phone calls were inadmissible and that Hart impermissibly opined on the defendants’ guilt.
Kirsch wrote that the district court could have more clearly articulated to the jury that Hart’s expert opinions were to be weighed separately from his fact testimony, and that the members of the jury were entitled to give those opinions however much weight they believed to be appropriate.
“But this shortcoming did not amount to plain error. And at the end of the trial, the court gave a final jury instruction that all parties jointly submitted, agreed to, and do not challenge in appeal,” Kirsch wrote.
According to Kirsch, the district court committed no error in allowing Hart to draw from his extensive experience with the broader investigation into Trice’s drug trafficking organization when interpreting the words and behavior of its individual members.
The appellate court also found the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hart’s testimony regarding his viewing of the October 2018 drug transaction via video.
It also rejected McClure and Payne’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions, describing evidence of their guilt as “not just sufficient, but overwhelming.”
“A rational juror could certainly conclude that McClure brokered a deal with Trice for the purchase of methamphetamine on Payne’s behalf, and when Payne realized law enforcement was following him, he threw the methamphetamine out of his car,” Kirsch wrote.
As for Bard’s sentencing challenge, when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the district court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 262 to 327 months, then sentenced him at the absolute bottom of that range.
Kirsch wrote that Bard’s criminal history was not overstated and differentiated him from his co-defendants, justifying his longer sentence.
The judge also rejected Bard’s argument that the sentence was in effect a “nearly life sentence,” noting the defendant, if he serves the full 262 months, would be released in his mid-50s.
“Far from an abuse of discretion, the district court gave thoughtful consideration to Bard’s arguments. It simply disagreed with them, as do we,” Kirsch wrote.
Judges Ilana Rovner and Amy St. Eve concurred.
The case is United States of America v. Eric Bard, Carlo Payne and Antonio McClure, 21-1521, 21-2618, 21-2689.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.