United States v. Melvin Lamar Triplett

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 2026
Docket25-1122
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Melvin Lamar Triplett (United States v. Melvin Lamar Triplett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Melvin Lamar Triplett, (6th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0257n.06

Case No. 25-1122

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED Jun 08, 2026 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MELVIN LAMAR TRIPLETT, MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION )

Before: GRIFFIN, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

READLER, Circuit Judge. Melvin Triplett was convicted of two counts of distributing

fentanyl-laced crack cocaine resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Triplett argues that

the government offered insufficient evidence to support these convictions. We disagree and

affirm.

I.

Triplett manufactured and sold crack cocaine in Detroit. Working from Pierson Street in

an area known locally as “The Boat,” Triplett acquired the ingredient drugs and cooked them into

crack cocaine. He then distributed the drugs to customers directly or through the assistance of

associates like Shamar Malone, who also helped package the drugs. Triplett set the prices for the

drugs he and his associates distributed. No. 25-1122, United States v. Triplett

In addition to producing and selling crack cocaine, Triplett also began selling fentanyl.

One particular batch of crack cocaine underlies today’s case. The government believed that

Triplett laced the batch at issue with fentanyl. To that end, Triplett remarked to Malone that he

had “f[*]ked up” the batch yet sold it anyway. R. 157, PageID 3584, 3665. Customers too noticed

that something was wrong with Triplett’s production. Some suffered gravely from using the

flawed substance: Three customers overdosed shortly after purchasing the crack cocaine from

Triplett, and two of them died.

Michael Lucas was one such victim. After purchasing the crack cocaine from Triplett,

Lucas and his girlfriend, Jennifer Gossett, returned home to use the drugs. Gossett immediately

sensed that “something wasn’t right” with the cocaine because she felt “light headed and

disoriented.” R. 153, PageID 2729. Even more problematic, she could not move or speak, feeling

“paralyzed.” Id. at 2730. For Lucas, however, the reaction was far worse. After smoking the

crack cocaine, Lucas fell on the bed and stopped breathing. Gossett attempted to help Lucas by

performing chest compressions, but she quickly passed out. When she came to, she called 911.

But by the time the paramedics arrived, Lucas was dead. Next to Lucas’s body, the first responders

recovered drugs that tested positive for crack cocaine and fentanyl.

Allen Peery met the same tragic fate. On the same day that Lucas made his purchase from

Triplett, Peery’s girlfriend Karen Campbell, who had been buying drugs from Triplett for about

20 years, called Triplett to purchase some crack cocaine. Following the call, Campbell and Peery

drove to The Boat, where Malone, acting as Triplett’s runner, delivered the drugs to the pair.

Campbell noticed that the crack cocaine looked different than usual. Instead of appearing smooth,

it had a “sandy” texture. R. 153, PageID 2833. Nonetheless, Peery smoked the crack as he drove

away, at which point he immediately lost consciousness, veering the vehicle off the road.

2 No. 25-1122, United States v. Triplett

Campbell managed to move Peery out of the driver’s seat, remove the car from the ditch, and drive

to a nearby parking lot to call 911. Peery died before medical help arrived, however. Campbell

later gave police the leftover crack cocaine that Peery smoked, which tested positive for cocaine

and fentanyl. After Peery’s death, Triplett called Campbell to acknowledge that he had “switched

up batches.” R. 153, PageID 2843–44. And he later sent Campbell a text message to make sure

she had not received any of the “bad stuff”—which Campbell understood to mean fentanyl-laced

crack cocaine. Id. at 2846.

Law enforcement quickly connected the Lucas and Peery overdoses through their common

drug source. Officers in turn arranged for Campbell, who agreed to cooperate with law

enforcement, to conduct a controlled buy from Triplett. On the day of the buy, officers surveilled

Triplett on Pierson Street near The Boat loading his truck with bags and also observed him sell

crack cocaine to Campbell. In addition, the officers searched a nearby abandoned house tied to

Triplett’s operation, recovering fentanyl-laced crack cocaine from the location.

Further, phone records, cell site data, and witness testimony connected Triplett to the sale

of crack cocaine that killed Lucas and Peery, placing him near the transactions that preceded the

overdoses. Lab testing and autopsies confirmed that Lucas and Peery both ingested cocaine and

fentanyl shortly before their deaths and, further, that the fentanyl-laced crack cocaine caused their

overdoses. Additional messages recovered from Triplett’s phones revealed him contacting other

customers after the overdoses to ask whether they were “okay” and acknowledging that he had

“f[*]ked up bad.” R. 156, PageID 3449.

Based upon this amassed evidence, Triplett was later indicted on conspiracy, distribution

resulting in death, and distribution resulting in serious bodily injury charges. And a jury convicted

him on all counts. After the district court denied his motions for acquittal, Triplett timely appealed.

3 No. 25-1122, United States v. Triplett

II.

Triplett argues that the government offered insufficient evidence to support his convictions

for distribution of cocaine and fentanyl resulting in death. Triplett’s path to relief, however, is an

uphill climb. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to see if “any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” “after

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, 319 (1979); accord United States v. Hinojosa, 67 F.4th 334, 340 (6th Cir. 2023). Our job is

not to reweigh the evidence, reevaluate witnesses’ credibility, or substitute our judgment for that

of the jury. United States v. Mosley, 53 F.4th 947, 956 (6th Cir. 2022). Instead, we accept all

reasonable inferences that might have supported the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Maya, 966

F.3d 493, 498–99 (6th Cir. 2020).

To convict Triplett of drug distribution resulting in death, the government had to prove that

he knowingly or intentionally distributed a mixture or substance of a detectable amount of fentanyl

and cocaine, and that death resulted from the use of that drug. Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S.

204, 210 (2014); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). According to Triplett, the government failed

to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he provided the drugs that killed Lucas and Peery.

We disagree. The evidence presented at trial easily permitted a rational jury to conclude

that Lucas and Peery died from the drugs they purchased from Triplett. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at

319. Start with Lucas. Gossett provided eyewitness testimony about the events leading to Lucas’s

death.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Burrage v. United States
134 S. Ct. 881 (Supreme Court, 2014)
United States v. Andy Maya
966 F.3d 493 (Sixth Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Ivan Crump
65 F.4th 287 (Sixth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Leonel Miller Hinojosa, Jr.
67 F.4th 334 (Sixth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Melvin Lamar Triplett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-melvin-lamar-triplett-ca6-2026.