United States v. Patrick Sangmeister

Patrick Sangmeister and Michael Dennis Jones were indicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Other unnamed conspirators were charged in the original indictment. At the commencement of trial the Government acknowledged that it did not have sufficient evidence of the existence of other conspirators. The jury found Sangmeister guilty but was unable to reach a verdict as to Jones. Jones was granted a new trial, but Sangmeister’s motion for a new trial or alternatively for judgment of acquittal was denied. After Jones was convicted and sentenced for a similar offense, the Government dismissed the case against Jones.

Sangmeister appeals his conviction contending that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Jones, the only possible co-conspirator and (2) inability of the jury to reach a verdict as to Jones requires reversal of Sangmeister’s conviction. We affirm.

I.

On May 3, 1980 Shirley Ann Fair, working on behalf of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), telephoned Michael Dennis Jones, a former paramour. They discussed the idea of contacting Patrick Sangmeister, a mutual acquaintance in Las Vegas, as a possible supplier of…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from part III of the majority’s opinion. I think a “rule of consistency” requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction when a jury is unable to reach a verdict on the defendant’s only possible co-conspirator.

The only justification I see for not following the rule of consistency is that Sangmeister should not benefit from the happenstance of a joint trial: had Jones and Sangmeister been tried separately, a hung jury for Jones might not have saved Sangmeister. Cf. United States v. Shipp, 359 F.2d 185, 189 (6th Cir.) (conspiracy conviction stands after severance of charges against co-conspirator), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 903 , 87 S.Ct. 213 , 17 L.Ed.2d 134 (1966). But this same reason would presumably justify rejection of the rule of consistency when a jury acquits one of two conspirators; yet an “acquittal of all but one of the alleged conspirators requires acquittal of the remaining defendant.” United States v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1982); cf. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 246 , 60 S.Ct. 811, 854 , 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940) (dictum) (new trial for defendant’s co-conspirators requires new trial for defendant).…

685 F.2d 1124 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick SANGMEISTER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 80-1823. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 11, 1982. Decided Aug. 31, 1982. Kenneth G. Freitas, Wiener, Waldman & Gordon, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant. Edward J. Kane, Asst. U. S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKOPIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. SKOPIL, Circuit Judge: 1 Patrick Sangmeister and Michael Dennis Jones were indicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Other unnamed conspirators were charged in the original indictment. At the commencement of trial the Government acknowledged that it did not have sufficient evidence of the existence of other conspirators. The jury found Sangmeister guilty but was unable to reach a verdict as to Jones. Jones was granted a new trial, but Sangmeister's motion for a new trial or alternatively for judgment of acquittal was denied. After Jones was convicted and sentenced for a similar offense, the Government dismissed the case…