Public Defense

Recently, the court held that the ?buyer-seller? rule did not apply where the defendant, a drug buyer who resold the drugs, clearly had a stake in the seller?s operation. See "Buyer?s Remorse," posted October 26, 2008.

Here, the court goes over this same material again. The appellants were frequent customers of a large crack distribution operation in Utica, New York. They resold the crack, and the sellers knew it. While this alone is not enough to create conspiracy liability - ?mere awareness on the part of the seller that the buyer intends to resell the drugs is not sufficient to show that the seller and buyer share a conspiratorial interest to further the buyer?s resale? - here, there was more.

Specifically, there was evidence that could lead a jury to find that the sellers shared with the buyers an ?interest and a stake in the buyers? intention to resell the drugs? and that the buyers and the sellers shared an intention ?to be a continuing part of, and to further, the sellers? drug selling operation.? In other words, this was ?cooperative venture? in which the ?buyers and sellers had a stake in additional transfers of drugs beyond the transfers from the original seller to the original buyer.?

Full post as published by Second Circuit Blog on February 08, 2009 (boomark / email).