United States v. Evans
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
970 F.2d 663 (1992)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Donald Evans, Dominic Evans, James Joubert, Perry Roberts, and Diana Brice (defendants) were indicted for conspiracy to participate in a large-scale distribution of crack cocaine. At trial, evidence was submitted to demonstrate a conspiracy among these individuals based on their roles in a number of drug-related activities. Carl Walker was identified as the central player in the conspiracy. Walker purchased crack cocaine from Donald Evans and sold crack cocaine to Joubert and Brice. Donald Evans, together with his associate, James Backward, converted powder cocaine to crack cocaine and sold it to Roberts and possibly to Dominic Evans. Dominic Evans sold and fronted powder cocaine to Backward and attended a drug-related meeting between Donald Evans and Walker. Roberts purchased crack cocaine from Donald Evans, fronted crack cocaine to an individual named Eric Rentie, and attended a drug-related meeting between Donald Evans and Walker. Joubert bought crack cocaine from Walker and Rentie and fronted crack cocaine to Rentie. Joubert and Rentie also borrowed scales from Brice to weigh crack cocaine. The jury found Donald Evans, Dominic Evans, Joubert, Robert, and Brice guilty of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and they appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ebel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.



