Controlled Substances – conspiracy — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Controlled Substances – conspiracy — sufficiency of the evidence

Where the defendant accepted a finder’s fee to arrange a drug deal, the evidence was sufficient to convict him of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.

“Hemphill testified that he paid Bey a finder’s fee for his help in arranging the sale. This testimony, when paired with the extensive evidence that Bey was acting as a middleman between Hemphill and Chub, provided the necessary support for the inference that Bey agreed to help Hemphill sell heroin. The fact of payment provided probative evidence that Bey had a shared stake in Hemphill’s sale and allowed the other evidence presented by the government to be read in a reasonable manner consistent with a conspiracy between Bey and Hemphill. With the evidence of payment, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Bey recommended Hemphill to Chub and helped organize the deal not just because Chub asked him to but because he also had a separate agreement with Hemphill to help promote Hemphill’s drug distribution enterprise. In other words, Bey was a broker working for both sides.”

Affirmed.

12-1592 U.S. v. Bey

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coleman, J., Hamilton, J.