United States v. Verdoorn

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976 · Evidence

528 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1976)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencerecent possessionstolen propertyjury instructionburden of proofpresumption of innocenceconspiracyseverance

Facts

The government’s evidence showed that David Verdoorn, Maynard John Verdoorn, and LeRoy Miller stole a semi-trailer loaded with 232 beef quarters from a truck terminal in the Council Bluffs, Iowa area and took it to the Sioux City area. Portions of the stolen beef were delivered to a retail meat store, stored on Van Maanen’s farm, and stored in another trailer at a truck stop. On January 28, 1975, all three appellants and Miller loaded meat from a storm cellar on Van Maanen’s farm onto a truck to take to a prospective buyer, after which Maynard Verdoorn, Van Maanen, and Miller were arrested, and David Verdoorn was arrested a couple of days later. Van Maanen denied knowledge of the stolen meat on his farm, David Verdoorn denied involvement, and Maynard Verdoorn did not testify.

Issue

Whether the district court committed reversible error by denying Van Maanen’s sufficiency, severance, and suppression motions; by denying a mistrial based on allegedly inconsistent identification testimony; by instructing the jury on the inference from possession of recently stolen property; and by excluding evidence of plea bargaining with defendants. Also, whether the recent-possession instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of proof or infringed the right not to testify.

Rule

Once the government establishes the existence of a conspiracy, even slight evidence connecting a particular defendant to it may be sufficient. Defendants charged as part of the same act or series of acts constituting parts of a common scheme may be tried together, and absent a showing of real prejudice a denial of severance is not an abuse of discretion; failure to renew a severance motion ordinarily waives the claim. A search is valid when a person with authority voluntarily consents after being advised of the right to refuse. A jury may be instructed that possession of recently stolen property permits an inference of guilt if the instruction makes clear that "recently" is relative and that the defendant has no burden to testify or produce evidence. Unsuccessful plea offers and related negotiations are generally inadmissible.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A cargo of stolen pharmaceuticals is hidden in several locations around Tulsa, Oklahoma. After the government offers strong evidence that a theft-and-resale ring existed, one accomplice testifies that Nolan Pierce agreed to store boxes in his machine shed and knew they were stolen, and phone records place Nolan in repeated contact with ring members.

If Nolan argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient because only one accomplice directly tied him to the conspiracy, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that where the existence of a conspiracy is strongly shown, even slight evidence connecting a particular defendant may be substantial enough to support conviction. It also emphasized that the testimony of a coconspirator alone could suffice, with credibility left to the jury, and corroboration only strengthened the case.