Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Jacob Cartlidge Jr.'s conviction for attempting to aid and abet the possession and distribution of marijuana. The court held that promises of protection, warnings, information about timing, and acceptance of payment constituted substantial steps strongly corroborative of criminal intent under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The court also rejected plain-error claims concerning witness testimony and upheld the prosecutor's racially neutral explanations for peremptory challenges under Batson v. Kentucky.
Holdings
- Evidence of promises to provide assistance, assurances that the defendant could protect the operation from law enforcement, information about a favorable time for the operation, and acceptance of payment constituted conduct beyond mere preparation and was sufficient to prove an attempt to aid and abet a federal drug offense.
- The district court did not commit plain error by failing sua sponte to exclude or caution the jury about testimony concerning the sheriff's and another witness's views of Cartlidge's guilt, particularly where the testimony was elicited by defense counsel and was not emphasized by the prosecution.
- Cartlidge failed to prove purposeful racial discrimination because the prosecutor articulated specific, legitimate, race-neutral reasons for each challenged juror and the district court accepted those explanations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Cartlidge attempted to aid and abet the possession and distribution of marijuana rather than merely preparing to do so or accepting a bribe.
- Whether the district court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to exclude or caution the jury about testimony elicited during defense cross-examination concerning the defendant's guilt.
- Whether the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against Black prospective jurors violated the rule announced in Batson v. Kentucky, including whether Batson applied to this pre-Batson trial.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986)(applied)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)(cited)
- United States v. Mandujano, 499 F.2d 370, 372, 376 (5th Cir. 1974)(followed)
- United States v. Oviedo, 525 F.2d 881, 885-86 (5th Cir. 1976)(explained)
- United States v. Woolery, 735 F.2d 818, 822-23 (5th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- United States v. Mowad, 641 F.2d 1067, 1073 (2d Cir. 1981)(persuasive)
- United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)(followed)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 757-66 (1946)(cited)
- United States v. Larson, 722 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1983)(cited)
- United States v. Gerald, 624 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1980)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…