Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1446 U.S. v. Baker

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 24, 2011//

10-1446 U.S. v. Baker

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 24, 2011//

Listen to this article

Possession of cocaine
Sufficiency of the evidence

The evidence was sufficient to convict a defendant of possession of cocaine, even though no witness saw him with the cocaine and his fingerprints were not on the bag.

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found that Baker was in possession of the baggies of crack cocaine and dropped those baggies while fleeing from the police. The arresting officers testified that although he was compliant at first, Baker immediately fled from the officers in response to Officer Aikman’s movement to pat him down to search for weapons or drugs. Officer Aikman testified that Baker was within his sight during the entire chase and, though he could not see Baker’s hands the entire time, Baker appeared as though he was attempting to retrieve something from his front pants pocket as they were approaching the fence. When Officer Aikman immediately returned to the area where he had tackled Baker along the collapsed fence, he quickly spotted the two baggies on the ground. Baker ignores Keomala’s testimony almost entirely. Even setting aside the disputed prior bad acts evidence, Keomala testified that Baker told her he was on the ‘Hill’ the night of his arrest ‘posted up,’ and explained that she understood this to mean that he was waiting to exchange drugs for money.
Additionally, Office Jack Turner, an expert witness in the distribution of crack cocaine, testified that 25.2 grams of crack cocaine is ‘a distribution sized amount.’ See United States v. Maholias, 985 F.2d 869, 879 (7th Cir. 1993) (‘intent to distribute can be inferred from the possession of a quantity of drugs larger than needed for personal use’). Between the arresting officers’ testimony, Keomala’s testimony regarding what Baker told her both before and after his arrest, and the quantity of drugs found, the government presented enough direct and circumstantial evidence that a reasonable jury could have found Baker guilty.”

Affirmed.

10-1446 U.S. v. Baker

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests