The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the conviction of Michael J. Yumang on multiple drug trafficking and firearms charges stemming from law enforcement searches conducted in 2019 and 2022 in suburban Milwaukee. The decision, issued Jan. 9, 2026, in *United States v. Michael J. Yumang* (7th Cir. 2026), rejected Yumang's appeal challenging testimony from government drug analysts.
The case began when police searches of Yumang's car and home in the Milwaukee area uncovered distribution quantities of methamphetamine, along with a handgun and ammunition. Just before the 2022 search, a postal inspector intercepted an additional quarter pound of methamphetamine in a package mailed to Yumang's residence from a Los Angeles address. During questioning, Yumang admitted to police that he regularly obtained methamphetamine from a California source and resold it to others in Wisconsin.
Prosecutors charged Yumang with three separate drug-trafficking counts: one for each of the 2019 and 2022 methamphetamine seizures, and a third attempt offense for the intercepted shipment. He also faced charges for unlawfully possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. The charges reflected a pattern of interstate drug distribution that authorities said demonstrated Yumang's role as a distributor rather than a mere user.
Yumang opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial, betting that he could convince U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of Wisconsin that the methamphetamine was either for his personal use or belonged to someone else. This strategy proved unsuccessful, as the district court found him guilty on all counts after weighing the evidence.
The government's case relied heavily on forensic analysis of the seized methamphetamine. Three forensic chemists testified for the prosecution: two from the Drug Enforcement Administration and one from the postal service. These experts analyzed the three separate batches of methamphetamine recovered during the 2019 and 2022 investigations.
Complications arose when the government disclosed, in compliance with its Brady and Giglio obligations, that the DEA chemist who performed the 2019 analysis had been placed on a performance improvement plan in 2023. Brady and Giglio requirements mandate that prosecutors turn over potentially exculpatory evidence or information that could impeach government witnesses. The disclosure was covered by a protective order to maintain confidentiality of the personnel information.
On appeal, Yumang raised two claims of trial error, both connected to the testimony of one of the government's drug analysts. The Seventh Circuit panel, consisting of Chief Judge Brennan and Circuit Judges Easterbrook and Sykes, heard oral arguments on Sept. 25, 2025, before issuing its decision affirming the conviction.
Circuit Judge Sykes wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel. While the full text of the decision was not available, the court's affirmance indicates that Yumang's challenges to the analyst testimony were unsuccessful. The appeals court found no reversible error in how the district court handled the evidence or the witness testimony.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges defendants face when challenging forensic evidence in drug cases. Even when government analysts face professional scrutiny or performance issues, courts often find that such problems do not undermine the reliability of specific test results when proper protocols were followed.
Yumang's admission to police that he regularly obtained methamphetamine from California and resold it in Wisconsin likely proved central to the government's case. Such admissions can be difficult to overcome at trial, particularly when corroborated by the discovery of distribution quantities of drugs and the interception of additional shipments.
The interstate nature of the alleged drug trafficking operation, with methamphetamine flowing from California to Wisconsin, reflects broader patterns federal authorities have identified in methamphetamine distribution networks. The use of postal services to ship drugs across state lines has become a common method for drug traffickers seeking to avoid detection during transportation.
The firearms charge adds another layer of seriousness to the case. Federal law imposes enhanced penalties for possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, reflecting congressional intent to address the violence often associated with drug distribution.
With the Seventh Circuit's affirmance, Yumang's options for further appeal are limited. He could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of petitions and typically focuses on cases involving significant legal questions or conflicts between circuit courts.
The decision represents another example of federal appeals courts upholding drug trafficking convictions despite challenges to forensic evidence. While defendants continue to raise questions about the reliability of government testing and analyst qualifications, courts generally require clear evidence of actual errors or misconduct that affected specific test results.