U.S. v. Lomax

Record contained sufficient evidence to support two defendants’ convictions on drug conspiracy charge based on evidence gathered through controlled drug buys and wiretapped phone calls. Record showed that both defendants shared customers, drug supplier and heroin while making drug sales. However, Ct. vacated third defendant’s conspiracy conviction, where Dist. Ct. improperly refused said defendant’s request to instruct jury about difference between conspiracy and mere buyer-seller relationship, since evidence suggested that said defendant was mere customer of co-defendants. Record showed that: (1) said defendant, who purchased drugs from both co-defendants, was not under control of either co-defendant; (2) said defendant did not have common drug sales goals with either co-defendant; and (3) record failed to contain evidence that said defendant purchased heroin on credit from either co-defendant or agreed with co-defendants to look for customers. Fact that record contained some evidence suggesting presence of conspiracy such as said defendant’s single sale of drugs to common customer of conspiracy did not require different result.