## Facts

- Federal agents investigated a methamphetamine distribution operation in the Western District of Missouri, including undercover buys from Teresa Wolfe, a participant in the scheme.
- Jackie R. Shelledy was charged with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and some quantity of hydromorphone and oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and 851.
- At trial, the government called cooperating witnesses, including Wolfe and James Smith, who testified that Shelledy repeatedly supplied methamphetamine for redistribution, including by “fronting” drugs.
- The government also introduced corroborating evidence, including electronic communications, to support witnesses’ accounts of Shelledy’s role as a supplier.
- The district court admitted evidence of Shelledy’s gang affiliation to explain relationships and interactions among participants in the charged conspiracy.
- The district court also admitted evidence of Shelledy’s prior convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for non-character purposes such as knowledge and intent, and gave limiting instructions.
- During cross-examination, Shelledy sought to impeach Wolfe with convictions that were more than ten years old; the district court excluded that impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b).
- Shelledy also sought to question other government witnesses about details of their prior convictions; the district court allowed inquiry into the type of offense, place, date, and sentence, but barred additional specifics.
- The government presented evidence that Shelledy attempted to influence a witness; over objection, the district court gave a permissive instruction allowing the jury to consider such conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
- A jury convicted Shelledy, and the district court imposed a 300-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Shelledy knowingly joined a drug-distribution conspiracy (as opposed to a mere buyer–seller relationship or personal-use sharing).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting (a) gang-affiliation evidence and (b) prior-conviction evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, including (a) excluding Wolfe’s convictions older than ten years under Rule 609(b) and (b) limiting inquiry into other witnesses’ prior convictions to basic identifying information.
4. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury it could consider attempts to influence a witness as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Shelledy’s conviction and 300-month sentence.
- The court held the evidence, including testimony about repeated, substantial drug transactions and “fronting,” was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Shelledy joined a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Shelledy’s gang affiliation because it helped explain relationships and the operation of the conspiracy, and the Rule 403 balance was reasonable.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Shelledy’s prior convictions under Rule 404(b) for permissible purposes such as knowledge and intent, particularly in light of limiting instructions.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 609 by excluding Wolfe’s stale convictions under Rule 609(b) and by restricting cross-examination of other witnesses to the type, place, date, and sentence for their convictions.
- The court upheld the consciousness-of-guilt instruction as a permissive instruction supported by record evidence of an attempt to influence a witness.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and reverses only if no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A drug-distribution conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence; repeated high-quantity transactions, credit or “fronting” arrangements, and coordinated conduct may support an inference of agreement to redistribute drugs beyond a simple buyer–seller relationship.
- Gang-affiliation evidence may be admitted when it is relevant to proving relationships, knowledge, or the operation of the charged conspiracy, and when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
- Rule 404(b) allows prior-acts evidence for non-propensity purposes (including knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake) when the evidence is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and limiting instructions may reduce risk of misuse.
- Under Rule 609(b), convictions more than ten years old are generally inadmissible for impeachment unless their probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect and notice requirements are satisfied; district courts have broad discretion to control the scope of impeachment and to limit inquiry into conviction details to avoid distraction and confusion.
- A jury may be instructed that it can, but need not, treat attempts to influence a witness as evidence of consciousness of guilt, so long as the instruction is supported by evidence and does not shift the burden of proof.

## Conclusion

United States v. Shelledy affirmed a drug-conspiracy conviction where the government presented evidence that Shelledy supplied methamphetamine for redistribution, and the Eighth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings limiting Rule 609 impeachment (including excluding a witness’s stale convictions), admitting gang and Rule 404(b) evidence for proper purposes, and giving a permissive consciousness-of-guilt instruction based on witness-influence evidence.


United States v. Shelledy, 961 F.3d 1014 (2020)