Conspiracy — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Conspiracy — sufficiency of the evidence

The evidence was sufficient to conclude the defendant was a conspirator with his cocaine suppliers, and not a mere buyer.

“[A]lthough the jury could have believed Brown’s version, it also could have believed the government’s version beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence showing that Brown took out insurance on the HHR strongly implies that Brown used it. (R. 192 at 41–42.) And given that the vehicle had a special compartment for hiding drugs, if Brown used the HHR, it would be reasonable to infer that he used it to distribute drugs. Also, the millions of dollars worth of business Brown was providing the Twins could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the Twins gave Brown the vehicle as a gift to aid in further distribution. After all, the more Brown sold, the more money the Floreses would make. In this way, the Floreses had a “shared stake in the illegal venture,” along with an “actively pursued course of sales.” Suggs, 374 F.3d at 518; accord Fuller, 532 F.3d at 662. As we have demonstrated, a rational jury could have come to this conclusion. Therefore, the evidence against Brown was sufficient for conviction.”

Affirmed.

12-2743 U.S. v. Brown

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Kanne, J.