Controlled substances – distribution — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

Controlled purchases by an informant are sufficient to support a conviction for distribution of controlled substances.
“Stevenson acknowledges that a government witness is not considered unbelievable by law merely because of drug use, but rather only when it is either physically impossible for the witness to have seen what she claims to have seen or when it is impossible for the incident to have occurred at all. Id. at 734-35; United States v. Hayes, 236 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2001). Having so conceded, Stevenson goes on to argue that because Quincy was not thoroughly searched, baggie fingerprints were not obtained, and a drug-sniffing dog did not search the car, Quincy’s testimony was ‘incredible.’ (Stevenson Brief at 15). These factors may point to weaknesses in the government’s case, but surely do not make it impossible for the drug transactions to have occurred or for Quincy to have seen it. And after considering the minor weaknesses in the government’s case, the jury still found sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Affirmed.

11-2355 U.S. v. Stevenson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Mills, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text