132566P.pdf   03/18/2015  United States  v.  Donald Turner, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2566
                          and No:  13-2572
                          and No:  13-2574
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant Corey Turner lacked 
   standing to contest the issuance of warrants for Precise Location 
   Information on two other defendants' cell phones as he did not own, 
   possess or use the cell phones which were the objects of the warrants and 
   did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the phones or the 
   location information; the government made the requisite showing of 
   necessity to justify the issuance of wiretap orders; assuming that Corey 
   Turner's cell phone was a tracking device for the purposes of the 
   procedural requirements of Rule 41, the combination order in the case, 
   granting both wire tap authorization and permission to seize PLI from 
   Corey Turner's phone, failed to meet a substantial number of Rule 41's 
   procedural requirements; while the court is concerned about the number of 
   Rule 41 violations in the case, Turner has failed to show any prejudice or 
   that the government acted in reckless disregard of the Rule, and exclusion 
   of the evidence is not the proper remedy for the violations; in order to 
   admit testimony from a co-conspirator regarding the meaning of certain 
   drug-related terms in intercepted calls, the government should have 
   qualified her as an expert; however, the error did not affect the jury's 
   verdict as she and other witnesses interpreted the terms without 
   objection; before admitting evidence regarding defendants' prior drug 
   convictions, the court should have required the government to explain its 
   purpose in offering the evidence to exclude the possibility that the 
   evidence was being admitted solely to prove propensity; any error in 
   admission of the evidence in this case was harmless in light of the other 
   evidence in the case; where only the video, without sound, of defendant 
   Anthony Turner's prior arrest was played, any error in playing the video 
   was harmless as the jury did not hear the statements to which Turner 
   objected; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Donald Turner's 
   conviction for conspiracy as it was up to the jury to determine the 
   credibility of the witnesses against Turner and the jurors were properly 
   instructed on their responsibilities, including weighing any benefits the 
   witnesses received for their testimony; evidence was sufficient to support 
   defendant Antonio Turner's conviction for conspiracy; Antonio Turner's 
   sentence was set by the enhanced penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851 
   and any error in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to him was 
   harmless; no error in admitting evidence of drugs distributed by 
   co-defendants where the distribution was reasonably foreseeable by 
   defendant Donald Turner; the Section 851 notice provided defendant Donald 
   Turner was adequate and any error in the notice did not deprive him of due 
   process; claims of ineffective assistance at sentencing should be raised 
   in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255.