## Facts

- James F. Ford and members of his family ran an indoor marijuana-growing operation from their home in Monroe, Maine.
- On November 15, 2011, law enforcement executed a search warrant at the residence and found a large grow operation and two disassembled firearms.
- Ford gave recorded statements describing the operation’s scale and methods, including repeated harvests and sales for thousands of dollars per pound.
- A federal superseding indictment charged Ford with: (1) conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana, (2) manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, (3) maintaining a drug-involved premises, and (4) being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Ford had a prior marijuana-related federal conviction arising from a guilty plea for a similar operation in Massachusetts.
- A jury in the District of Maine convicted Ford on all counts.
- At sentencing, the district court noted that some states had legalized medical and recreational marijuana, but still applied the statutory mandatory minimum based on plant count and Ford’s prior conviction and imposed 120 months’ imprisonment, plus eight years of supervised release.
- Ford appealed, challenging (among other things) the charging process and mandatory-minimum findings, several evidentiary rulings (including co-conspirator hearsay), and the constitutionality of the 10-year mandatory minimum.

## Issues

1. Whether any defect in the indictment or submission of mandatory-minimum facts violated *Alleyne v. United States*, and if so, whether the error required reversal.
2. Whether the district court improperly admitted hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as co-conspirator statements “in furtherance of” the conspiracy, and whether any error was harmful.
3. Whether other challenged evidentiary rulings, including objections under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, required a new trial.
4. Whether the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence for Ford’s marijuana offenses was “grossly disproportionate” under the Eighth Amendment in light of changing public views, state legalization, and federal enforcement policy.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Ford’s convictions and sentence in full.
- Any *Alleyne*-related problem in how mandatory-minimum facts were charged or submitted was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the trial record.
- The district court erred in admitting at least some hearsay as co-conspirator statements because the “in furtherance” requirement was not met, but the error was harmless in light of the remaining evidence.
- Any additional evidentiary errors, including challenged material with very low probative value under Rule 403, did not warrant reversal because Ford showed no prejudice affecting the verdict.
- The 10-year mandatory minimum did not violate the Eighth Amendment; the sentence was not grossly disproportionate to a large-scale, commercial marijuana operation carried out by a repeat offender.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Alleyne v. United States*, any fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum must be treated as an element and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; an *Alleyne* violation may be affirmed if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) admits a co-conspirator’s statement only if it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy; misapplication of the “in furtherance” requirement is subject to harmless-error review.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows exclusion of evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; even if a trial court abuses its discretion, reversal requires a showing that the error affected the verdict.
- The Eighth Amendment’s proportionality review for term-of-years sentences is narrow; a sentence violates the Constitution only in the rare case of “gross disproportionality.”
- Courts give substantial weight to Congress’s penalty choices for drug offenses, including mandatory minimums tied to drug quantity and prior convictions, and policy changes at the state level or federal enforcement guidance do not alter the statutory sentencing scheme.

## Conclusion

United States v. Ford, 839 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2016), affirmed James F. Ford’s convictions for marijuana trafficking-related offenses and felon-in-possession, and upheld the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. The First Circuit held that any *Alleyne* problem in the charging or proof of mandatory-minimum facts was harmless, that any evidentiary missteps (including improperly admitted co-conspirator hearsay and other challenged proof) did not affect the outcome, and that shifting state marijuana laws and federal enforcement priorities did not make Congress’s 10-year mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment.


United States v. Ford, 839 F.3d 94 (2016)