01-4245 U.S. v. Payton

Listen to this article

“There was other evidence as well, including testimony from people who bought drugs directly from Payton, but this does not mean (as Payton suggests) that the evidence against him was limited to ‘unconnected buyer-seller transactions.’ Such transactions involve only the two-person criminal agreement necessary for the separate crime of distribution and thus are not punishable as conspiracies. See United States v. Shi, 317 F.3d 715, 718 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Clay, 37 F.3d 338, 341 (7th Cir. 1994); Townsend, 924 F.2d at 1394. But when the buyer or the seller is assisted by a third person, that collaboration is punishable as a conspiracy. The ‘buyer-seller’ argument is irrelevant in such cases because the conspirators are on the same side of the sale. See United States v. Garcia, 89 F.3d 362, 365 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Larkins, 83 F.3d 162, 167 (7th Cir. 1996); Herrera, 54 F.3d at 353-54; United States v. Baskin-Bey, 45 F.3d 200, 205 (7th Cir. 1995). The evidence showing that Payton and his father worked together puts his case in this category.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Rovner, J.