U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1993

United States v. Pardue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided January 4, 1993 · Hansen, Lay, Wollman

983 F.2d 850; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 16; 1993 WL 135 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Phillip A. Moon, Fayetteville, AR, argued, for appellant David Pardue in No. 91-2290., Jennifer Horan, Fayetteville, AR, argued, for appellee Michel Pardue in Nos. 91-2307 and 91-2388., John Wesley Hall, Jr., Little Rock, AR, argued, for appellee Jack Pardue in Nos. 91-2307 and 91-2388., Vicki S. Marani Washington, DC., argued (J. Michael Fitzhugh and William M. Cromwell, on the brief), for the U.S. in Nos. 91-2290, 91-2307 and 91-2388.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Media Group, Inc. v. Tuppatsch (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are fully set forth in our companion opinion filed this date involving Michel and Jack Pardue. See United States v. Jack Pardue; Michel Pardue, Nos. 91-2307/2388, 983 F.2d 835. David Pardue appealed his conviction for (1) conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in connection with murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1988), engaging in or aiding and abetting interstate travel in connection with murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (1988), and use of the mails in connection with murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). He claims that his conviction must be reversed because an individual cannot conspire with himself or a government agent. He urges that because the district court acquitted Michel Pardue and Jack Pardue, there was nobody with whom to conspire. We find no merit to this claim now that the judgment of acquittals for both Michel and Jack Pardue have been reversed. David Pardue also claims the district court erred in permitting evidence of David’s prior misconduct. He fur*851ther argues that his due process rights were violated by the government’s outrageous conduct.

We find no prejudicial error in the conviction of David Pardue.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.