◆ SpookStack

In October 2006 Jones and a number of his co-defendants went to trial. The jury acquitted the co-defendants on all counts but one; it could not reach a verdict on the remaining count, which was eventually dismissed. The jury acquitted Jones on a number. of counts but could not reach a verdict on the conspiracy charge, as to which the court. declared a mistrial. Soon thereafter thie district couri aliowed Maynard to witndraw his guilty plea. In March 2007 the Government filed another superseding indictment charging Jones, Maynard, and a few co-defendants with a single count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base. A joint trial of Jones and Maynard began in November 2007 and ended in January 2008, when the jury found them both guilty.. II. Analysis: Joint Issues Jones and Maynard jointly argue the district court erred in (1) admitting evidence gleaned from wiretaps of their phones, (2) admitting evidence arising from a search incident to a traffic stop, (3) denying their motion to dismiss the indictment as invalid because it was handed down by a grand jury that had expired, (4) declining to instruct the jury on their theory that the evidence at trial suggested multiple conspiracies, and (5) declining to grant immunity to several defense witnesses who invoked the Fifth. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and refused to testify. Jones also argues the court erred in admitting evidence acquired by the warrantless use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to track his movements continuously for a month.FN* After concluding none of the joint issues warrants reversal, we turn to Jones's individual argument. FN* Maynard waves at one individual argument, to wit, that *the district court erred in concedes his argument "is foreclosed by" precedent, e.g., United States y. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C.Cir.2006) (district court's consideration of prior acquitted conduct did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States). He nonetheless "raises this issue to preserve his argument in anticipation of future changes in the law and/or en banc review." So be it.. A. Wiretaps *2 Before their first trial Jones and his co-defendants moved to suppress evidence taken from wiretaps on Jones's and Maynard's phones. The police had warrants for the wiretaps, but the defendants argued the issuing court abused its discretion in approving the warrants because the applications for the warrants did not satisfy the so-called "necessity requirement," see 18 U.S.C. $ 2518(3)(c) ("normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous'); see also, e.g., United States y. Becton, 601 F.3d 588, 596 (D.C.Cir.2010). They also moved for a hearing, pursuant to Franks y. Delaware, 438 3 TTUOTD