08-2679 U.S. v. Sanchez

Listen to this article

Retaliation Against a Witness
Sufficiency of evidence

Where the government presented no evidence that the defendant knew the targets of his kidnapping plot had given testimony against the drug trafficker for whom the defendant was working, the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for retaliation against a witness.

“The government responds that the jury could have inferred that Sanchez learned about Vega’s and Maria Jimenez’s testimony from Vasquez himself or from someone associated with the Mexican drug cartel. But no evidence supports either inference; this argument relies entirely on speculation. See United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 472 (7th Cir. 1998) (‘”[W]e recognize that in reviewing a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence, we must insure that the verdict does not rest solely on the piling of inference upon inference . . . .”‘ (quoting United States v. Moore, 115 F.3d 1348, 1364 (7th Cir. 1997))). The inference might be sustainable had the government offered evidence to show that the victims’ testimony at Vasquez’s trial was widely publicized and that Sanchez was so closely tied to the underlying conspiracy that he might reasonably be presumed to have knowledge of that trial. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 903 F.2d 1084, 1087-89 (7th Cir. 1990). But there was no such evidence in this case. The evidence established instead that Sanchez thought his targets owed Vasquez money and that that was the reason for the kidnapping. Accordingly, we vacate Sanchez’s conviction for conspiracy to retaliate against a witness.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

08-2679 U.S. v. Sanchez

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Sykes, J.

Full Text