Sufficiency of Evidence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Andres Garcia

Case No.: 18-1735

Officials: ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

A jury found defendant-appellant Andres Garcia guilty of distributing cocaine—actually distributing a kilogram of the stuff—to co-defendant Alan Cisneros in violation of 21 US.C. § 841. The government offered no direct evidence that Garcia possessed or controlled cocaine, drug paraphernalia, large quantities of cash, or other unexplained wealth. There was no admission of drug trafficking by Garcia, nor any testimony from witnesses (undercover agents, criminal confederates, innocent bystanders, or surveillance officers) that Garcia distributed cocaine. Instead, the government secured this verdict based upon a federal agent’s opinion testimony purporting to interpret several cryptic intercepted phone calls between Garcia and Cisneros, a known drug dealer.

This case illustrates the role trial judges have in guarding the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. It also reminds us of the connection between the roles that judges play in criminal cases, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and in civil cases, where motions for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law require judges to evaluate the outer limits of reasonable inferences under the lower civil standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252–53 (1986) (comparing civil summary judgment standards to criminal standard discussed in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979)). If the evidence would not allow a civil case to survive a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict, then the case has no business being given to a jury in a criminal trial.

We assume the government’s circumstantial evidence here might have supported a search warrant or perhaps a wiretap on Garcia’s telephone. It simply was not sufficient to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for distributing cocaine. We reverse the district court’s decisions denying Garcia’s motions for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and reverse his convictions for insufficient evidence.

Reversed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.