Page 40 - TPA Journal July-August 2025

21 discussion about prices for acquiring and cretely connected the various conspirators to an
reselling methamphetamine, the jury could rea- actual shipment of methamphetamine. Since
sonably conclude that they were purchasing the Donovan and Orlando had ordered methampheta-
drug with the aim of selling it to others rather than mine from Ford on the same day that Ford was
for personal consumption. A jury could interpret supposed to receive a large package of metham-
Donovan’s May 21 and May 26 conversations phetamine via Gowdy, the jury could reasonably
with Ford, as well as the cousins’ awareness of infer that Donovan and Orlando were aiming to
Ford’s “funny ways,” as suggesting that Ford had repurchase some of the methamphetamine that
a history of supplying them with methampheta- Gowdy was supposed to bring to Ford.
mine as part of an ongoing arrangement. The jury These reasonable inferences starkly differentiate
could interpret Orlando’s request on May 23 that the instant case from United States v. White. In
Donovan “Help [Orlando] get rid of them if White, we held that “[d]rug transactions alone do
[Donovan] don’t find none” as Orlando asking not constitute a conspiracy, and it would be an
Donovan to help him sell his marijuana if exercise in sheer speculation to conclude” from
Donovan could not procure any methampheta- the admissible evidence “that a heroin conspiracy
mine to sell, indicating that the cousins collaborat- existed”; moreover, “such speculation . . . does not
ed in selling drugs. constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In
Likewise, the jury could infer from the cousins’ that case, there was no evidence that the accused
second conversation on May 28 about their poten- husband and wife ever even discussed their drug
tial plans for picking up the drugs from Ford that dealings. Here, by contrast, there is far more evi-
they purposefully coordinated pickups and pay- dence of collaboration between Donovan and
ments for drugs (sometimes paying on behalf of Orlando, including direct conversations in which
one another) because they were acting in concert. they discussed prices and suppliers for drugs,
The jury could further construe their agreement offered each other advice, and seemed to rely on
later that night that—“we’ve made enough money one another to complete deals. So, even though “it
to sit back and wait on another” supplier other is well-settled that a conspiracy cannot be proven
than Ford—as suggesting that they shared money solely by family relationship or other types of
and profits from the venture, another indication of close association,” the jury had much more evi-
an agreement. Furthermore, when the cousins dence to support its inferences in this case, and the
commented “[s]omebody talking” after they heard conviction was not based upon mere speculation.
the news of Gowdy’s arrest, the jury could inter- A jury could reasonably infer an agreement
pret that statement as expressing shared concern between Donovan, Orlando, and others from this
that someone within their larger conspiracy might evidence. Moreover, a jury could reasonably con-
cause trouble for all of them. Their discussion clude that the agreement, which entailed efforts to
about getting methamphetamine from Arizona acquire large quantities of methamphetamine and
could further indicate to a jury that this conspira- potentially reached across state lines, went far
cy went beyond the two of them, Ford, and beyond the sort of “single buy-sell agreement”
Gowdy, and it stretched across state lines. between “mere acquirers and street-level users”
Altogether, this evidence shows an agreement that that would qualify Donovan and Orlando for the
amounts to far more than the “conscious paral- buyer-seller exception to conspiracy. Therefore,
lelism” that we deemed “insufficient to establish a the district court did not err in denying the motion
conspiracy” in United States v. Holloway. for a judgment of acquittal on count one.
Lastly, Gowdy’s testimony about his arrest and the Count three charged Donovan with conspiring “to
circumstances leading up to it gave the jury a basis possess with intent to distribute a mixture or sub-
for determining that Ford had expanded the con- stance containing a detectable amount of metham-
spiracy to include others, and the testimony con- phetamine” during a period “beginning on or

36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal