## Facts

- The DEA investigated a drug-trafficking organization moving cocaine and marijuana from Houston to distributors in the St. Louis area and returning cash proceeds to Houston.
- In late 2011, agents learned Juan Williams was supplying cocaine to a St. Louis dealer; in January 2012, postal inspectors intercepted a Houston-to-St. Louis package containing about three kilograms of cocaine and arrested the intended recipient.
- Investigators obtained Title III wiretap authority and intercepted calls that led them to George Lee, who discussed drug shipments, prices, and drug debts, and arranged distribution beyond Missouri.
- Agents later wiretapped Lee’s phone and recorded conversations in which Lee coordinated drug transactions and addressed the movement of drug proceeds.
- In April 2012, agents learned Williams and another person were transporting cash from St. Louis toward Houston; a traffic stop revealed $69,910 hidden in a compartment and sealed in a vacuum bag, and the money was seized.
- Recorded calls after the stop captured discussions about the seized cash and the resulting problems within the operation.
- Agents also intercepted communications showing Lee arranging for Carmen Haire to transport money derived from drug sales; Haire was arrested while traveling toward Houston with more than $33,000 in cash intended for Lee.
- Lee was charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs, conspiracy to launder drug proceeds, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; Haire was charged with conspiracy to launder drug proceeds.
- At trial, the government introduced wiretap recordings and called DEA agent Brett Johnson, who identified speakers and testified the recordings had not been altered.
- A jury convicted both defendants, and the district court sentenced Lee to 240 months’ imprisonment and Haire to 36 months’ imprisonment; both appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting wiretap recordings based on the government’s authentication foundation.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing a DEA agent to testify about the meaning of drug-related coded terms used in the intercepted calls.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by admitting portions of Lee’s recorded statements referencing “drug cartels and Colombians.”
4. Whether the district court erred by admitting statements against Haire as coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by giving a willful blindness (deliberate ignorance) instruction regarding Haire’s knowledge of the source of the cash.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Haire’s conviction for conspiracy to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the wiretap recordings were properly authenticated through agent testimony identifying voices and stating the recordings were not altered, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting DEA testimony interpreting drug-related terms used in recorded conversations.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Lee’s statements about “drug cartels and Colombians,” concluding their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The court held statements by conspirators were properly admitted against Haire under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because a conspiracy and Haire’s connection to it were supported by evidence and the statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- The court held the willful blindness instruction was supported by the record and was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Haire guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to launder drug proceeds.

## Legal Principles

- Authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the item is what the proponent claims; testimony identifying speakers and stating recordings are unaltered can satisfy this requirement.
- Law-enforcement testimony explaining coded drug terminology may be admitted under Rule 702 when it helps the jury understand specialized drug-trafficking language used in intercepted communications.
- Under Rule 403, relevant evidence is excluded only when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value; references suggesting connections to large-scale drug suppliers may be admissible when they help show role, knowledge, or scope.
- Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is admissible against a defendant if the government shows by a preponderance that a conspiracy existed, the defendant joined it, and the statement was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- A willful blindness instruction may be given when the evidence supports an inference the defendant suspected a high probability of an illegal fact and intentionally avoided confirming it, rather than merely acting carelessly.
- On sufficiency review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a rational jury could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

United States v. Haire affirmed convictions arising from a wiretap-based drug-trafficking and proceeds-moving investigation, holding that the government laid an adequate foundation to authenticate the recordings, that testimony interpreting coded drug terms and challenged recorded references was properly admitted, and that Haire’s conviction for laundering-conspiracy was supported by admissible coconspirator statements, a proper willful-blindness instruction, and sufficient evidence of knowing participation.


United States v. Haire, 806 F.3d 991 (2015)