Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03560/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David L. Willoughby
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3560

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David L. Willoughby, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 2004

Filed: July 7, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On October 15, 2002, David Willoughby was charged with two counts of

distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), based on two alleged sales of crack cocaine to a confidential

informant on June 17 and June 25, 2002. After a trial, the jury found him not guilty

of count one of the indictment but guilty of count two. He was thereafter sentenced

to ninety-two months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release. He

now appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for acquittal at the close of

Appellate Case: 03-3560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2004 Entry ID: 1784985 
-2-

evidence, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty

verdict.

We review the district court’s denial of Willoughby’s motion for acquittal de

novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving the

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences. United States v. Serrano-Lopez,

366 F.3d 628, 634 (8th Cir. 2004). We will reverse only if we find that no reasonable

jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States

v. Frank, 354 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2004).

After reviewing the record, we find the evidence was more than sufficient to

support the conviction. At trial, Detective Don Stanze of the Kansas City, Missouri,

Police Department testified that on June 25, 2002, he arranged a “controlled buy”

between Gary Jackson, a confidential informant working in cooperation with the

police, and Willoughby. Jackson was given $750 to purchase an ounce of crack

cocaine from Willoughby. He was searched and wired before meeting Willoughby

in Willoughby’s car on the side of the road. Detective Stanze observed the two men

in the car from a distance and listened to their conversation through the wire Jackson

was wearing. As Jackson exited the car, officers arrived and detained Willoughby

and Jackson. Willoughby was arrested and searched by the officers, who found the

$750 of pre-recorded buy money in his possession. Detective Stanze found

approximately an ounce of crack cocaine on Jackson. Detective Stanze identified

Willoughby at trial as the individual who sold drugs to Jackson on June 25, 2002.

Jackson also testified for the government, recounting much of what Detective

Stanze stated, but also testifying to what happened in the car during the June 25,

2002, controlled buy. In particular, he testified that, as planned, he purchased an

ounce of crack cocaine from Willoughby for $750.

Appellate Case: 03-3560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2004 Entry ID: 1784985 
-3-

Willoughby’s sole argument on appeal is that Jackson’s trial testimony was

unreliable because he was cooperating with the government in exchange for leniency

in unrelated charges pending against him. It is up to the jury, however, not this court,

to assess Jackson’s credibility. See United States v. Jackson, 345 F.3d 638, 647 (8th

Cir. 2003); United States v. Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 2003). The

jury was not required to disregard Jackson’s testimony simply because he was

cooperating with the government for leniency. See Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d at 747.

Moreover, as shown above, Jackson’s testimony was not the only proof offered by the

government, but was corroborated and buttressed by the testimony of Detective

Stanze. We therefore find that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3560 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2004 Entry ID: 1784985