United States v. Cook, 10th Cir. (2010)
United States v. Cook, 10th Cir. (2010)
Clerk of Court
v.
ROBERT GUYTON COOK,
Defendant - Appellant.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Background
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1108 (10th Cir. 2010).
A.
killed Earl Flippen minutes after Mr. Flippen murdered Deputy Anderss partner.
4 R. at 799-801, 804-06, 810-11. For this crime, Deputy Anders pled guilty to
voluntary manslaughter and served one year in state prison. Id. at 811.
Mr. Flippen was the New Mexico leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. Id. at
841, 914. In early 2005, the Aryan Brotherhoods generals ordered its members
to kill Deputy Anders. 4 R. at 838-40, 871-74, 1440; Gov. Exs. 4, 5.
In May of 2006, Owen Puckett, a major who replaced Mr. Flippen as New
Mexicos leader, told D.W. that he wanted to plan avenging Mr. Flippens death.
4 R. at 914, 931-32. D.W., a senior captain in the New Mexico Aryan
Brotherhood, was a federal informant. Id. at 910-12. He introduced an
undercover FBI agent, Pete, as a prospective member who would carry out the
murder. Id. at 932-33.
At a meeting on May 13, 2006, Mr. Puckett, Pete, and D.W. agreed to kill
Deputy Anders once he left prison. Id. at 933, 943, 1368-69. They settled on a
-2-
method for the murder and planned a getaway car and weapons. Id. at 943, 1369.
Mr. Puckett then wrote to Aryan Brotherhood generals for approval. Id. at 94546.
B.
contacted Mr. Puckett about the plan. Id. at 195, 229-30. Mr. Puckett and D.W.
then scheduled a meeting to plan the murder with Mr. Cook. Id. at 232-33, 236,
259-60, 1448-49; Gov. Ex. 26. Before the meeting, Mr. Cook offered his home as
a safe house for the murderer. 4 R. at 1459-60. Mr. Cook also let Samuel
Arrington, a captain in the Aryan Brotherhood, know about the meeting. Id. at
1334, 1459. D.W. and Mr. Cook together finalized the location, travel, and
attendees. Id. at 1024, 1468-69; Gov. Ex. 39.
Meanwhile, Mr. Puckett was arrested for violating his parole. 4 R. at 1471.
He nevertheless remained in charge of New Mexico Aryan Brotherhood from jail
and helped with the plan. 4 R. at 1221, 1471-73. For example, he told D.W. to
promote Pete to a higher rank after the murder. Id. at 1472.
On August 26, 2006, Mr. Cook and Mr. Arrington met with D.W. and Pete.
Id. at 1050, 1055; Gov. Ex. 41. Mr. Cook told Pete how to stalk and kill Deputy
Anders. Gov. Ex. 41. He also said, If you need to Ill come in from out of state
and do it. Id. Mr. Cook again offered Pete a safe house. 4 R. at 1069. At one
point, D.W. said that a threat to one is a threat to all, and Mr. Arrington nodded
-3-
some methamphetamine he could sell while on the run. Id. at 1090-91, 1338. Mr.
Arrington agreed and negotiated for methamphetamine on their behalf. Id. at
1227-31. Mr. Arrington also said that Pete could stay with him after the murder.
Id. at 1335. Soon after, Mr. Cook chastised D.W. and Mr. Arrington for talking
about the murder instead of concealing the plan. Id. at 1091-92.
A few days after that, on October 4, 2006, D.W. told Mr. Cook that he
needed a pound of methamphetamine to sell and turn at a profit, to finance the
killing of Deputy Anders. Gov. Ex. 45. Mr. Cook said, I can get it for you.
That aint a problem. Gov. Ex. 45. He stated that his captain, Weyman
Mathews, had a methamphetamine connection. 4 R. at 1101; Gov. Ex. 45.
On October 9, 2006, Mr. Cook told D.W. that the price would be between
$8,000 and $10,000 a pound, and that he and Mr. Mathews were ready when D.W.
had the money. 4 R. at 276, 278-79; Gov. Ex. 46. D.W. told Mr. Cook that he
needed the final price. Gov. Ex. 46.
After Mr. Cook phoned Mr. Mathews, he told D.W. that the price would be
-4-
$7500 to $8000. 4 R. at 279-80; Gov. Ex. 47. Mr. Cook repeated that he was
getting the drugs through Mr. Mathews, who required payment up front. 4 R. at
280-81; Gov. Ex. 47. Mr. Cook also said that they would need three or four days
notice. 4 R. at 280; Gov. Ex. 47. Mr. Cook agreed to deliver the drugs
personally for an extra $1000. Gov. Ex. 47.
On October 25, 2006, D.W. called Mr. Cook to see whether they were on.
4 R. at 282; Gov. Ex. 51. Mr. Cook said that they were, and he detailed when and
where D.W. would meet Mr. Mathews. Gov. Ex. 51. D.W. again asked not to
pay up front, saying that he would turn the methamphetamine quickly. Id. Mr.
Cook replied that payment was up to Mr. Mathews. Id. D.W. then complained
that it was an awful large amount of cash for a first time meet. 4 R. at 28485; Gov. Ex. 51. Mr. Cook replied, Thats where you just gotta trust [Mr.
Mathews]. Gov. Ex. 51. D.W. never consummated the deal. 4 R. at 285-86.
D.
Discussion
This court reviews sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, examining
all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the government, to determine whether a rational jury could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Oldbear, 568 F.3d
814, 822-23 (10th Cir. 2009). We do not evaluate witness credibility or weigh
conflicting evidence. United States v. Parker, 553 F.3d 1309, 1316 (10th Cir.
2009). We also do not review the evidence in bits and pieces, but we evaluate
the sufficiency of the evidence by consider[ing] the collective inferences to be
drawn from the evidence as a whole. Id. (citation omitted).
Mr. Puckett initiated the plan before his arrest and continued facilitating it from
jail. The jury could conclude that Mr. Puckett never withdrew from the
conspiracy. To withdraw from a conspiracy, a conspirator must make an
affirmative act disavowing or defeating the purpose of the conspiracy. United
States v. Gonzalez, 596 F.3d 1228, 1234 (10th Cir. 2010). As well, Mr. Arrington
joined the conspiracy while Mr. Cook was a member. Mr. Arrington nodded his
approval of the plan at the August meeting. He later offered to provide a safe
house and to get methamphetamine to finance the murder.
Mr. Cook participated in the conspiracy while Mr. Puckett and Mr.
Arrington were fellow conspirators. Mr. Cook coordinated communications,
planned meetings, took direction from generals, prescribed the method of the
murder, offered to commit the murder, and advised the others how to avoid being
caught. He offered to provide a safe house for the murderer and brokered a drug
deal to finance the murder. In short, ample evidence showed that Mr. Cook
conspired with Mr. Puckett and Mr. Arrington to murder Deputy Anders.
B. Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine.
To prove Mr. Cook guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, the
government had to prove that (1) Mr. Cook and at least one other person agreed to
distribute methamphetamine; (2) that Mr. Cook knew the essential objective of
the conspiracy; (3) that Mr. Cook knowingly and voluntarily involved himself in
the conspiracy; (4) there was interdependence among the members of the
-8-
conspiracy, and (5) the overall scope of the conspiracy involved 50 grams or more
of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. 841, 846; United States v. Caldwell, 589 F.3d
1323, 1329 (10th Cir. 2009).
Mr. Cook challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the first and fourth
elements, arguing that the government failed to prove agreement or
interdependence between himself and a non-governmental actor. Aplt. Br. at
31-40. Mr. Cook argues that he and Mr. Mathews only had a buyer-seller
relationship. Aplt. Br. at 36-40.
Yet a rational jury could conclude the opposite. Mr. Cook agreed to be the
middle man in a five-figure methamphetamine transaction between D.W. and Mr.
Mathews. Mr. Cook said that he was getting the drugs from Mr. Mathews. He
checked with Mr. Mathews about all the details of the deal the price, the
timing, and whether D.W. would have to pay cash up front. The jury could infer
from this that Mr. Cook secured Mr. Mathewss agreement to sell the drugs to
D.W. for distribution.
The jury also could find that these drugs were for distribution. D.W. told
Mr. Cook that he would resell the drugs. The large amount of methamphetamine
at stake would have alerted Mr. Mathews that D.W. would distribute it. Mr.
Cooks involvement with Mr. Mathews thus went far beyond being an
independent, one-time buyer of an individual portion of drugs. Cf. United States
v. McIntyre, 836 F.2d 467, 471-72 (10th Cir. 1987).
-9-
Mr. Cook and Mr. Mathews were also interdependent. If Mr. Cook had not
arranged the deal, Mr. Mathews could not have sold these drugs to D.W.. And if
Mr. Mathews did not provide the drugs, Mr. Cook would not be able to finance
his murder conspiracy by helping D.W. distribute this methamphetamine.
Contrary to Mr. Cooks arguments, the fact that D.W. could have obtained
methamphetamine elsewhere does not negate the interdependence of Mr. Cook
and Mr. Mathews. Aplt. Br. at 34. What is needed is proof that [Mr. Cook and
Mr. Mathews] intended to act together for their shared mutual benefit within the
scope of the conspiracy charged. United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 671
(10th Cir. 1992). A jury could reasonably find that sufficient cooperation existed
between Mr. Cook and Mr. Mathews.
C. Restraining Mr. Cook at Trial.
As part of the presumption of innocence, a defendant has a qualified right
not to appear before a jury in shackles. United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279,
1293 (10th Cir. 2009). A district court, however, retains the discretion to take
measures to maintain order and security within its courtroom. Id. In any given
case, a district court must weigh these competing concerns and make a decision
on the record. Id. at 1294. It may not delegate its decision to the United States
marshals, although it may rely heavily on their advice. United States v. Apodaca,
843 F.2d 421, 431 (10th Cir. 1988).
We accordingly review a district courts physical restraint of the defendant
- 10 -
for an abuse of discretion. Id. But, keeping in mind due process, we also give
restraints close judicial scrutiny. Wardell, 591 F.3d at 1293 (citing Estelle v.
Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504 (1976)). Here, it is a close case whether or not the
district court impermissibly delegated its discretion to the marshals. We,
however, need not decide this issue. Even assuming that the court erred when it
shackled Mr. Cook, the record does not show that the jury saw the shackles and
was thereby prejudiced against him. Table skirts covered all restraints. And
although Mr. Cooks counsel expressed concern that jurors may have read a
newspaper article mentioning the shackles, the record does not show that any
jurors had read the article in violation of the courts instruction not to do so. 4 R.
at 864-65; 5 R. at 203. Accordingly, Mr. Cook cannot show prejudice and any
presumption of prejudice that applies when a jury saw or knew of the shackles
does not apply. Wardell, 591 F.3d at 1294.
AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Cooks motion to supplement the record.
- 11 -