In prosecution of drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in barring defendant's proffered evidence that drug operation she allegedly worked for killed two individuals, where defendant offered said evidence to support her claim that she sold drugs on behalf of organization under duress. Said evidence was irrelevant to defendant's duress defense since defendant either did not know about one death at time she was performing acts on behalf of organization, and other death had occurred after her arrest. Also, while Dist. Ct. failed to comply with Rule 32.2 by neglecting to either enter preliminary forfeiture order concerning seizure of approximately $10,000 in cash found near weapons in stash house and in failing to ask defendant whether she wished for jury to decide whether govt. had established nexus between drug conspiracy and cash, neither error amounted to plain error, where: (1) defendant failed to explain how either error would have affected ultimate outcome of forfeiture proceeding; and (2) no reasonable juror would not have found nexus between cash and defendant's conviction on drug conspiracy charge given location and context in which money was discovered. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving "ostrich" instruction with respect to money laundering charge against second defendant, where record showed that: (1) second defendant had acted to avoid knowledge of source of large sums that drug operation had asked him to transfer out of country; and (2) second defendant was dividing large deposits into smaller wire transfers to avoid finding out with certainty that he was handling drug money.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Evidence