T he H onorabl e Jon P hi pp s M cCal l a, U ni t ed St at es C hi ef D i s t r i ct Judge f or t he W es t er n D i s t r i ct of T enn es s ee, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0214n.06 No. 08-4640 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v. P E T E N E C H O V S K I, De fe nd ant/Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL

FROM THE UNI TED STA T E S D I ST RI CT CO U RT F O R TH E S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO OPI NI ON

Before: BOGGS a n d GI L MA N, Ci rc u i t J u d g es ; a n d Mc CA L L A, Ch i ef Di s tr i ct Judge. * JON P . McC ALLA, Chief District Judge
. De fe nd ant- a

pp e lla nt P e te Ne c ho vs ki a

pp e a ls the jur y ve rd ic t f ind ing him g uil ty of

c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w iththe int e nt t o d ist ri bu te c oc a ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Def endant Nec hovski a

ppeals the ve rdict on the ba sis that there wa s insufficient e vidence for the jur y to find him g uilty bey ond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons set fo rt h b e low , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED
. I
. A. P roce dural Hi story On J une 7, 2007, a f

eder al g rand jury for the Souther n District of Ohio re turned a n indictment
c ha rg ingDefen dan t Pe te Ne c ho vs ki ( “ De fe nd ant” ) w ithc on sp ir a c y to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o distribute over 500 g rams of coca ine i n violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (“Count One” ). De fenda nt wasNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-2- s u b s e qu e n t l y

ar r e s t e d o nJ u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 7
. T h e i n d i c t m e n tw a s s u p e r s e d e d o nO c t o b e r

1 1 , 2 0 0 7
. In
a dd iti on to Co un t O ne , D e fe nd ant w a s c ha rg e d w ithbe inga

fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re a rm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) a nd 924(a) (2) ( “Count Two”) and beinga fe lon in possession of ammunition, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) a nd 924(a) (2) ( “Count Three ”). O n J anuar y 14, 2008, Def

endant f iled a motion to se ver Count One from Counts Two and Thr ee f or trial purposes. The district court g rante d Def endant’ s motion. A jury

trial on Count One commenc ed on M o n d ay, A u g u s t

4 , 2 0 0 8
. O nT h u r s d ay, A u g u s t7 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e j u r y r e tu r n e d a v e r d i c to f

g u i l t y. B. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound This case stems from a Dr ug Enforcem en t Ad m inistration (“DEA” ) investig ation into the illega l distributi on of narc otics in southe astern Ohio. During the cour se of the inve stigation, DEA S p ec i al Ag ent Matt Heuf elder develope d a conf

idential informant (“ CI ”) w ho ag ree d to assist the DE A a nd the Col umb us Pol ic e De pa rtme nt i n th e purc ha se of c oc a ine
. (D .E
. 99 a t 43 .) Th e CI tol d Ag ent Heuf

elder that he knew

a man in Te nnessee , identified only as “Bre nt,” who knew a potential
su pp lie r o f c oc a ine in O hio . T he po te nti a l su pp lie r o f c oc a ine wa s a

ta tto o a rt ist fr om C olumbu s, Oh i o n a m e d A rt h u r S h aw n Jar r e l l
. I n F e b r

u ar y 2 0 0 7 , t h e C I ar

r an g e d a m e e t i n g w i t h Ja r r e l l a t a Waffle House restaur ant on the ea st side of Columbus. Also present at the mee ting wa s underc over Columbus P olice De tective Char les J oy ce. J ar r e ll ar r iv e d to th e me e ti n g dr iv in g a g r ay G M C Su b u r b an . A t th is me e ti ng , Detec tive J oy ce pur chase d two ounces of coca ine from Jarre ll for $1,500.00. Afte r the tra nsaction was complete, De tective Joy ce inquire d into the pos sibili ty of purc hasing kilogr am quantities of coc aine.No. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-3- J arr ell told Detective Joy ce that “his partner ” had a cce ss to kilogram qua ntities of coca ine and that he could ha

ve the c ocaine available for de livery within a couple of

day s if neede d. I n Marc h 2007, J arr ell contac ted the CIand indicate d that he had kilog ram qua n t i t ies of
coca ine for sale. Duringthe conve rsation, the CIag ree d to a purc hase a kilogr am of c ocaine for $23,500.00. On Marc h 9, 2007, the CImet J arr ell at the same Waffle House as the initial meeting to c omp le te the tr ans a c tio n. Up on arr iva l, Jar re ll n oti fi e d th e CI

that he did

no t ha ve the c oc a ine in his pos session beca

use he did not wa

nt to bring the coca ine without first rec eiving the money
. De te c tiv e Joy c e a

n d a n o t he r u nd e rc ov e r p oli c e of

fi c e r s ub se qu e ntl y

arr ive d at th e Waf

fl e Ho us e wi th the mon e y . De te c tiv e Joy c e , how e ve r, inf or me d J arr e ll that he wo uld no t han d ove r the mon e y un til he wa s in possession of the coca ine. At this point, J arr ell informed Detective J oy ce that he was go i n g to visit “his source ” of the coca ine and a sk whether the source would rele ase the coca ine wit h o u t p ay

m en t in hand. J arr ell indicated that if his sourc e wa s amena ble to this request, the
me e tin g wo uld

re c on ve ne in a

ne arb y B ob Ev ans re sta

ur ant p ark inglot
. J arr ell left the Waff

le House pa

rking lot and was followe d by DEA Ag ent Scott Waugaman to an apa rtment complex located at 2526 B urg undy L ane in Col u m b u s. Once J arr ell rea ched the entra nce to the a

partment c omplex , Ag ent Waug aman withdre w and maintaine d surveillance on the pe ri me te r o f t

he c omp le x. Ag e nt Wau g a man r a dio e d D EAAg e nt L e ann B a kr and dir e c te d h e r t o
r e e s ta b li s h s u r v e il la n c e o f Ja r r e ll w it h in th e a p artm e n t c o mp le x. By the t ime Ag ent Bakr entere d the apartment complex, the gra y Suburban t hat J arr ell was driving was pa

rked in fr ont of the ga rage door to one of the individual apartments. Ag ent B akr testified that there wer e at lea st three a partments, ea ch with a se parate g ara g e. The li v i n g are a ofNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-4- eac h apar tment is located direc tly

above the g ara g e; there fore , acc ess to the fr ont door requir ed climbing a

stairca se. Since Ag ent B akr did n o t s ee J arr ell exit ing the Suburban nor did she se e which apa

rtment J arr ell enter ed, she pa rked he r vehicle in a position t o see both the g ray Suburban and the f ront d o o r of the a

partment dire ctly

above the Suburban. Afte r appr ox imately fiftee n minutes, Ag ent B akr obse rved a n individual ex it the apar

tment under surveillance and enter the g ray Suburban. Ag ent Bakr was unable to identify the individual at this ti me. Once the g ray Suburban
e xite d the a

pa rtme nt c omp le x, a

se pa rate un it p ic ke d u

p s ur ve ill anc e of

the g ra y Sub ur ba n w hil e A g e n t B a kr

ma in ta in e d

h e r p o s it io nw it

h in th e a p artm e n t c o mp le x. At some point afte r Age nt Wauga man parked hi s vehicle outside the apar tment complex, he
rec eived r adio notification that a d i ff erent vehicle w as leaving the complex. Age nt Waugaman testified that he observe d a g ree n mid-siz ed seda n exit the apa

rtment complex and that he initiated
a ta il o f t he ve hic le
. Ag e nt Wau g a man de sc ri be d the ind ivi du a l dr ivi ngthe g re e n s e da n a s a wh ite
ma le wi th a

ba ld h e a d. Ac c or din g to A g e nt Wa ug a man, a lth ou g h it

wa s da rk ou tsi de , he wa s a

ble to see the individual inside the g ree n sedan beca use his “ headlig hts were shining dire ctly inside the vehicle.” After

Def endant wa s arr ested at his home on J une 27, 2007, Ag ent Waug aman wa s at the
scene and later testified that De fenda nt was the drive r of the g ree n mid-siz ed seda n that he obser

ved leavingthe apa

rtment complex on the evening of Mar ch 9, 2007. Ag ent Waug aman f

ollowed the vehic le for only a short per iod until he was ca lled back to the apar tment complex at 2526 Burg undy L ane. Prior to abandoning the tail on the g ree n sedan, A g ent Wauga man re lay ed the lice nse plate numbe r of the g ree n sedan to other members of

the surveillanc e team. While Ag ent Waug aman maintains that he rela y ed the license plate numbe r ac curately , theNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-5- investigation later re veale d that the license plate number rela y ed by Ag ent Waug aman did not belong to a g ree n mid-siz ed seda n but rather

to a white Honda

Civic reg istered to an owner in Cleveland, Ohio. Ag ent Waug aman testified that in his experience as a DEA a g ent, it is not uncommon during drug surveillance to discover that l i ce n s e p late number s do not corre spond to the vehicles unde r surveillance
. Whil e Ag ents Ba

kr and Waug aman r emained at 2526 Burgundy L ane, a separ ate unit of

the
surv e ill ance t eam foll ow e d th e g ra y Sub ur ba n a s it e xite d th e a

pa rtme nt c omp le x. DE A a g e nts followed the g ray

Suburban fr om the apar

tment complex t o a Bob Evans restaura nt parking lot where the C I wa s waiting in a par ked vehic le. Ag ent Heuf elder and Serg eant Steve O verholser with the Columbus P olice De partment wer e also in the Bob Evans parking lot maintaining surveillance of the CI ’s ve hic le . A t a

pp ro xima te ly

8:0 0 p .m. , the g ra

y Sub ur ba n arr ive d a t the B ob Ev ans pa rk inglot ; J arr ell was drivingthe vehicle . The CI exit ed his vehicle and got into the passeng er se at of Jarrell’s g ra y Sub ur ba n. With in minute s, the CI pla c e d a pho ne c a ll to Ag e nt He uf e lde r sig na lin g tha

t Jar re ll was in possession of the kilog ram of c ocaine; t h e ar re s t team moved in and Jarre ll was arr ested wi tho ut i nc ide nt. Shortly afte r he w as ar

rested, Jarre ll signed a Miranda waiver and beg an talking to the
a uth or iti e s. Whil e the a

uth or iti e s we re qu e sti on ing Jar re ll, his c e ll p ho ne be g an to re c e ive mul tip le ph on e c a lls fr om a

n indi vid ua l liste d in the c e ll pho ne ’s int e rn a l me mor y a s “ Pe ps te r. ” Jar

re ll’ s c e ll phone also rec eived sever al calls from a differ ent number with the label “Pep.” I n fa ct , Agent Heuf elder testified that J arr ell’s ce ll phone rec eived at least fourtee n phone ca lls that eveningfrom the numbers a ssociated with the names “Pep” and “Pep s t er . ” Defendant’s birth name is PepiNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-6- Nec hovski, and J arr ell testified t h at Defenda nt was listed in his cell phone under Def endant’ s nicknames “ Pep” and “ Pepster.” A g ent Heuf elder and Of fice r Ove rh o l s er te stified that, based on the ir e xpe ri e nc e in law e nf

or c e me nt, the y be lie ve d “ Pe ps te r” wa s the su pp lie r of the c oc a ine be c a

us e suppliers of drug s ty

pically want their “ money

returne d fairly q u i ck l y .” In an attempt to identify “Pepster,” Offic er Overholser broug ht up a picture of Defenda nt on a computer

scre en located in one of the Col umb us Pol ice De pa rtme nt p a tr ol c ru ise rs . O ff ic e r O ve rh ols e r t e sti fi e d th a t Jar re ll identified the individual in the picture a s the individual calling him at that time. At one point, Ag ent Heuf elde r all owed Jarre ll to answer one of the c alls from “Pepster .” Offic er O verholser

instructed J arr ell to tell the caller t hat “e very thing wa s fine” a

nd that “ther e we re no problems” in re g ards to the drug transac tion; Jarrell complied with the office r’s instructions. The
conver sation betwee n J arr ell and the unknown caller was not rec orded. Ag ent Heufelder , howeve r,
was ab l e t o hear

the per son on the phone a nd testified that the per son speakingto J arr ell had a Europea n acc ent. Afte r having the occa sion to listen to Def endant’ s voice when he was a rre sted on J une 27, 2007, Ag ent Heuf elder testified at trial that the voice he hear d on the phone on the e vening of Mar ch 9, 2007 wa s Defe ndant’s voice
. The DEAand the Columbu s P o l i ce D epar tment were able to tra ce the phone number
a sso c ia te d w iththe inc omi ngc a lls fr om “ Pe ps te r” to a c e ll p ho ne ow ne d b y

a Ste ve n El lio tt Sc ott , Jr. Sc ott Jr.’ s f a the r, Ste ve n E lli ot S c ott , Sr ., te sti fi e d th a t he ha d kno wn De fe nd ant sin c e the se ve nth g rade . Be cause of his fathe r’s re lationship with D ef endant, Scott J r. knewDef endant we ll and ref err ed to him as “U ncle Pete.” At trial, Scott J r. testified that he met J arr ell sever al times at De fe nd ant’ s h ou se wh e n Jar re ll pe rf or me d ta tto o w or

k. Sc ott Jr. e xpla ine d th a t “ Ia lw ay s u se d toNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-7- g o to my Un c le Pe te ’s ho us e and

DJ on the DJ e qu ipm e nt. ” Ac c or din g to Sco tt Jr. , th is l e d Jar re ll to g ive him

the nic kn a me “ L itt le Pe ps te r. ” He c la ime d tha t J arr e ll must have sa ve d Sc ott Jr.’ s n a me in his cell phone under

the label “ Pepster.” I n r e sp on se to t

he Gov e rnme nt’ s q

ue sti on ingre g ard ingthe mul tip le ph on e c a lls Jar re ll
rec eived f rom Scott J r.’s number

on the eve ning of Marc h 9, 2007, Scott J r. explained that he made the multiple phone calls to J arr ell. Scott J r. testified that a ll of the phone c alls relate d to a tattoo: Q.: Now, ca

n y ou explain to me and to the jury why y our phone w as in such consta nt
c on ta c t w ithSha

wn Jar re ll w hil e he wa s ma

kin g a dr ugde a l? Sc ott Jr.: Ye s si r. I ha d c a lle d Sha wn [Jar re ll] f or a ta tto o, ri g ht, and

he tol d me to
c a ll h im b a c k. So I

ke pt t ry ing to c a ll h im b a c k b e c a

us e it w a s li ke my

da d to ld m e to call him at first fo r t he tattoo. He told me to ca ll him back, rig ht. Ikept ca lling and ca lling, but I

didn’t g et no answe r. . . . Q.: The que stion I ’m g oing to ask y ou now, di d y ou make 15 phone calls to Arthur J arr ell b et we en 8:18 and 10:00 p.m. rig ht after he wa s arr ested with a kilo of
coca ine? Sc ott Jr.: Rig ht, fo r a

ta tto o I ke pt c a lli nghim

be c a us e , I me an, wa s tr

y ingto g e t th is finished. That’s w hat I

rea lly wanted. Q.: Okay . That wa s the most important thi ng in y our life that night, s o y ou called 15 times to ge t it done? Scott J r.: Well, he told me to call him back, so I kept ca lling him back.No. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-8- Sc ott Jr. deni ed hav in g an y

kn ow le dg e of

the dr ugde a l and

de nie d e ve r g ivi nghis ph on e to De fe nd ant. I n addition to the phone ca lls made to Jarre ll’s c ell phone on Marc h 9, 2007, phone re cords
reve aled that s o m eo n e from the number subscribed to Scott J r. ca lled J arr ell on Marc h 7, 2007 shortly afte r the CI

met with J arr ell. These same rec ords also reve aled that J arr ell called this number on Marc h 8, 2 0 0 7 shortly afte r Jarrell spoke with the CI . At one point, Scott J r. testified that he made these phone calls to Jarre ll in re fer ence to the tattoo. L ater at trial, Scott J r. testified that he could not explain the phone calls made on Marc h 7 and 8, 2007, possibly beca use he le t his father use his phone duringthis period of time. On the eve ning on Marc h 9, 2007, approximately forty minutes a fter the Suburban exited the Bur g undy L ane c omplex , Ag ent B akr obse rved a nother individual leave the apa rt m en t under surveillance . Authorities later ide ntifie d t h i s m an as Ji mmy Hampton, the tena

nt and primary resident o f

th a t a p artm e n t. U p o nle a v in g th e a p artm e n t, H a mp to nw a s im me d iate ly d e ta in e d a nd interviewe d by

the authorities. Ha

mpton to l d authorities that he ha d been f riends with Def

endant fo r a pp ro xima te ly

six y e ars . Sp e c if

ic a lly , H a mpt on

te sti fi e d th a t he me t D e fe nd ant t hr ou g h th e ir mutual interest in disc jockey ing a nd that he talks with De fe n dant “pr obably 20 times a day .” Hampton denied know ing a n individual named Shawn Jarrell and in re s p onse to being shown a picture of J arr ell, Hampton stated “ I ’ve ne ver se en that g uy in my life.” A fter being questioned about the e ve nts that oc c ur

re d o n th e e ve nin g of

Marc h 9 , 20 07 , H a mpt on tol d a uth or iti e s th a t to his knowledg e, neither

Def endant nor

J arr ell had bee n in his apartment t h at eveningand that no drugNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-9- tr ans a c tio n o c c ur

re d at his ap artme nt. I n ad dit ion , Hampt on c on se nte d to a se arc h o f h is a

pa rtme nt; no drug s or drugpara

pherna lia wer e found. The kilog ram of c ocaine seized from Jarrell when he was a rre ste d wa s s u b m i tted to the Colum b u s Po li c e D e p artm e n t l a b o r a to r y f o r te s ti n g . D e te c ti v e M ar

k G r e e nw it

h th e Co lumb us Police Depa

rtment crime scene sear ch unit discovered a single latent fing erpr int from the adhe sive side of a pie ce of

masking tape on the c ocaine packa g ing. Alift of the fing erpr int was transfe rre d to Officer Rober

t L awson, a

supervisor in the late nt fing erpr int section at the Columbus P olice De pa rtme nt. Af

te r stu dyingthe kn ow n p ri nts of De fe nd ant, Of

fi c e r L aws on

te sti fi e d at tr ia l, i n response to a question asking for “ scientific c erta inty ,” that the f inge rprint on the mask i ng tape belong ed to t he Defenda

nt. Offic er L awson also testified t hat i f an individual touche d the sticky side of a piece of tape and the piece of tape was then pla ced ba ck on the r oll, when the tape was pulled of f a g a in, thi s p ro c e ss c ou ld d e str oy pa rt or a ll o f a fi ng e rp ri nt. Of

fi c e r L aws on

a dmi tte d th a t th is was ba sed pure ly

on his ex pert opinion a

nd was not base d on any

rese arc h that he had pe rfor med. Mic ha e l S weed o, an e xpe rt in t he fi e ld o f f

ing e rp ri nt i de nti fi c a tio n, te sti fi e d a s a de fe ns e witnes s at trial. Sweedo c onfirmed Of fice r L awson’s te stimony that the latent print fr om the masking t ape and the known pr ints of Defe ndant wer e made by the same individual. Swee do, howeve r, also desc ribed an experiment that he ha d conducte d with various kinds of adhe sive tape. Sweedo testified that he was a ble to obtain latent fing erpr ints up to a y ear af t er t h ey had bee n deposited on the a dhesive side of various kinds of tape. Sweedo a dmitted that his ex periment wa s perf ormed in a c ontrolled environment a nd that it may

not “totally ref

lect re al life sce narios.” Sweedo a lso admitted that he had not used maskingtape in his ex periment, whic h was the ty pe ofNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-10- tape on whic h Def

endant’ s lat en t p ri nt was found. On c ross-examination, Sweedo wa s asked whether a fing erpr int that was deposited on the a dhesive side of a piec e of tape would be distorted if that pie c e wa s “put bac k on to the ro ll .
. . .” Swe e do re sp on de d th a t in his e xpe rt

op ini on , it

wo uld not “distort it sufficiently

to be able to not ef

fec t an identification. Either the print is identifiable or it’s not identifiable.” At Def endant’ s trial, J arr ell was the second witness called by the Gover nment. J arr ell stated that he had know n Def

endant f or multipl e y ea rs and that he considere d Def endant a g ood friend. During his testimony , J arr ell stated that he had two numbers for Def endant saved on his phone and that they wer e listed unde r the labels “Pep” and “Pepster.” J arr ell denied ever buy ing d ru gs fr om or selling d ru gs to Defe ndant. When questioned on the sourc e of c ocaine that he sold in the two instant drug transac tions, J arr ell testified that he obtaine d the coc aine “[f] rom a guy I ’d met at a

bar out on the east side.” I mmediately afte r making this statement, however, Jarre ll testified “I ’m sorry . . . I ’ve been ly ing to y ou the whole time. I was scare d to death, and I didn’t know what to do, and Ican’ t sit here in a c ourt of law and li e.” At that point, direc t examination of J arr ell cea sed and the jury was e x cused. J arr ell was not rec alled as a witness. After J arr ell was e x cused a s a witness, the Gover nment prese nted the following additional witnesses in order : Detec tive Green, Hampton, Ag ent Waug aman, Ag ent B akr, Ser g eant Ove rholser, Scott, Sr., Scott, J r., Of fi ce r L awson, a

nd Ag ent Heuf

elder . The last witness to testify at trial wa s Mich ae l Sweedo, De fenda nt’s expert wi tne ss. On Aug ust 7, 2008, the jury found De fenda

nt guil t y o n Count One of the supe rseding indictment: con s p i ra cy

to possess with the intent to dis tribute coc aine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §No. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-11- 846. On Nov em b er 2 5 , 2008, Def endant wa s sentence d to 120 months i n prison, the mandator y minimum sentenc e. This timely appea l followed.

II
. A. Stand ard of Review When review ing the sufficie ncy of the e viden ce to support a criminal convic tion, the “re levant questi o n i s whether , afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, anyrational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a reasonable doubt.” J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 4 3 U. S
. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ). Ac co rd i n gl y , i nad dre s s i n g a challeng e to the suff

iciency of the e vidence at trial, this court does not weig h the evidenc e pre sented,
c o n s i d e r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f

w i t n e s s e s , o rs u

b s t i tu t e t h e c o u rt ’ s o w nj u d g m e n tf o r t h a to f t h e j u r y. United St a t es v. Abdullah , 1 62 F .3 d 8 97 , 9 02 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) . “ Cir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e a lon e is
su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in a

c on vic tio n a

nd su c h e vid e nc e ne e d n ot r e mov e e ve ry re a so na ble hy po the sis except that of g uilt.” United States v. Kelley , 461 F.3d 817, 825 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Ultimately , “[a] defe ndant m aking such a challeng e bears a very heavy burden.” Id. ; see also United States v. Jone

s , 285 F. App’ x 243, 2 4 4 (6t h Cir. 2008) (noting that a def endant f ace s “an one rous standard of

revie w” with re spect to a suf ficienc y -of- the-e vidence challeng e).

B. Suf

fi ciency- of-the-Evidence Ana lys is Th e so le iss ue on

a pp e a l is wh e the r the g ov e rnme nt pr e se nte d su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e a t tr ia l to sustain Defe ndant’s conv i ction. “To sustain a c onviction for drugconspirac y under [21 U.S.C. §No. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-12- 846], t he g overnme nt must prove bey ond a re asonable doubt: (1) an ag ree ment to violate the drug laws; (2) know ledg e of a

nd intent to join t he conspira cy ; and (3) pa rticipation in the conspira cy .” United States v. Gardne r , 488 F.3d 700, 710 ( 6th Cir. 200 7 ). “These eleme nts may be shown by either direct or circumstantial evide nce.” Id. ; see also United States v . Crayton , 357 F.3d 560, 573 (6th Cir. 2004) (“ Circumstantial evidenc e may be the ‘ sole support’ of a conviction under § 846.” (citation omitted)). Proof of an express or f

ormal ag ree ment is not required; “ [a] tacit or mutual understanding among the parties is suffic ient.” Un ite d S tat es v . F orre st , 17 F.3d 916, 918 ( 6th Cir. 1994). Whil e “mer e association with conspirators is not enoug h,” United St ates v. Hughe s , 505 F.3d 57 8, 58 8 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 7) , “ on c e the e xiste nc e [of ] a c on sp ir a c y

is s ho wn [be y on d a re a so na

ble doubt] , the evidenc e linking a n individual to that conspirac y need only be slig ht,” United States v. Caver , 4 70 F .3 d 2 20 , 2 33 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; se e als o Un ite d States v. B e tan c ou rt , 838 F.2d 186, 174 (6th Cir. 1988). De fe nd ant d oe s n ot d isp ute that th ere was ample e vid e nc e fr om w hic h th e jur y c ou ld conclude bey ond a re asonable doubt that two drug offe nses occur red dur ing the time period of the alleg ed conspira cy . L ikewise, De fenda nt does not dispute t h at t h e evidence pr esente d by the Gover nment at trial wa s sufficient to show that a conspirac y

exis ted betwe en Jarrell and the man from Te nnessee identified only as “B rent.” Def

endant contends, rathe r, t hat i nsufficie nt evidence
w a s p r e s e n t e d

a ttr i a l t o a l l o w a

r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r t o f i n d t h a tD e f e n d an tj o i n e d

i nt h e c o n s p i r a c y. I n support of t his contention, Def endant r elies on Un ite d S tat es v . S au nd e rs , 325 F.2d 840 (6th Cir. 1964). I n Sa un de rs, the convictions of the de fenda nt for possession and sa le of na rcotics
wer e re verse d on the g round that the e vidence was insuffic ient. Id. at 844. The pa nel in Sa un de rsNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-13- stated: “Evidenc e that at most establishes no more than a choice of re asonable probabilities cannot be said to be suf

ficiently substantial to sustain a criminal convic tion on appeal.” Id. at 843. I n the instant case , Def

endant arg ues t hat reversa l is war rante d beca

use, based on the evidenc e pre sented
a t tr ia l, t he the or y that D e fe nd ant i s inno c e nt i s e qu a lly a s p ro ba ble a s th e the or

y of g uil t. I n Sa un de rs , it was found that ther e wa s insufficient evide nce to support a conviction beca use: The re cord [was] completely devoid of a

ny direc t testimony that [t he def endant] ever possessed any

narc otics or that she e ver sold any narc otics . . . no r wo uld the circ umstantial evidence ag ainst h er pr esent a ny thing more than a c hoice of probabilities. None of

the identified c urre ncy

was tra ce d t o h er. N o passag e of any thing be tween [the def

end an t ] and [ her c oconspirator ] was ever observe d. No fing er print testimony was prese nted that might link her w ith the envelope c ontaining the her oin.

Id. Def endant’ s relianc e on Sa un de rs , howeve r, is misplaced. Sa un de rs is f a c tua lly dis tin g uis ha

ble fr o m t h e ca s e at bar, a

nd the mere fac t that Defe ndant is able to off er the alternative theory

of innocenc e does not a

utomatically

rende r the e vidence insufficient. See U nited States v. De

gan , 229 F.3d 553, 556 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (“In considering the infere nces that a jury may drawfrom the e vidence , [t his Court] need not e x clude e very logic al hy

pothesis other than guilt.” ( citing United States v. Johnson , 741 F.2d 854, 856 ( 6th Cir. 1984)). I n the ins t an tc a s e , t h e G o v e r n m e n tp r e s e n t e d

a mp l e e v i d e n c e i nt h e f o r m o f w i t n e ss i d e n t i f i c a t i o nt e s t i m o n y f

o r a j u r y t o i n f e r D e f e n d an t ’ s kn o w i n g p art i c i p a t i o n i n t h e dr u g c o n s p i r a c y: (1) DE A Ag ent Waug aman identifie d Def endant as the m an he saw lea ving the apar

tment complex located at 2526 Burgundy L ane on the eveningof Mar ch 9, 2007; (2) D EA Agen t Heufe lderNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-14- overhe ard the conver sation betwee n J arr ell and “Pepste r” on the evening of Mar ch 9, 2007 and later identified “Pepster ’s” voice to be that of the D efe ndant; and (3) Offic er O verholser t es t i fi ed that upon J arr ell’s ar

rest, J arr ell identified Def endant’ s picture as being the per son who had just called him u n d e r

th e n a me o f

“ Pe p s te r . ” V ie w in g th is e v id e n c e in th e li g h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to the pr os e c uti on , it

wa s n ot i rr a tio na l f

or the jur y to c on c lud e that D e fe nd ant pl ay e d at le a st s ome ro le i nt h e c o n s p i r a c y. Evidence relating to the c ell phone number used to ca ll J arr ell on the eve nin g o f Marc h 9, 20 07 fu rt he r s up po rt s th e jur

y ’s c on c lus ion

tha t De fe nd ant wa s inv olv e d in the c on sp ir a c y . Jar re ll testified that two numbers we re saved in his cell phone that wer e as s o ciated w ith Defe ndant: one saved unde r the labe l “Pep” a nd the other saved und er t h e l abel “Pepster.” A g ent Heuf elder and Offic er O verholser

testified that J arr ell’s ce ll phone re ceive d approximately fourtee n phone ca lls on the eve ning of

Marc h 9, 2007 from the numbers s av ed as “Pep” a nd “Pepster.” I n addition, Def endan t w a s in

p o s s e s s io no f

mu lt ip le c e ll p h o n e s a t t h e ti me o f

h is ar r e s t, o n e o f

w h ic h was reg istered to a third pe rson. Def endant maintains that these calls were not made by him, but rathe r were made by Steve Scott, J r. in ref

ere nce to a

t at t o o appointment. Ag ent Heuf elder testified that he ove rhea rd one
c on ve rs a tio n b e tw e e n Jar re ll and the un ide nti fi e d c a lle r and that the su bs tanc e of the te le ph on e c a ll related to a drugtransac tion. Despite the fa ct that Scott Jr. te stified that he made all fourtee n phone calls to J arr ell on the eve ning of Marc h 9, 2007, he was unable to expl ain how his phone wa s used to make the c all reg ardingthe drugtransac tion or the ca lls made to J arr ell on Marc h 7th and 8th.No. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-15- Def endant a lso maintains that the evidence prese nted by the Govern m ent does not suffic e beca use Jarrell identified a

n unknown “guy

[he] met at a ba

r fr om the east side” as his coca ine supplier. Thus, Def

endant argues that J arr ell’s testimony prec ludes a finding that there is sufficient evidenc e to conne ct Def

endant to the c onspiracy . Although it i s undisputed that J arr ell identified
an unknown “guy

from the e ast side” a s his suppli er, Jarre ll also admitted in open court that he ha d been ly ing “ the whole time.” Es se nti a lly , D e fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t th e jur

y sh ou ld have be lie ve d th e te sti mony of Ste ve Sc ott J r. an d Ar t h u r S h aw nJ arre l l
. De fe n d an t ’s ar gu m en tre l at es t o wi t n es s cr ed i b i l i t y , an d at t h i s s t age of re view, “a ll credibility issues are to be re solved in favor of the jury ’s ver dict.” United States v. Fe k e te , 5 35 F .3 d 4 71 , 4 76 (6 th Cir . 200 8)
. Al tho ug h it wa s p os sib le fo r t he jur y to b e lie ve tha

t Sc ott Jr. m a de a ll f

ourt e e n p ho ne c a lls in re fe re nc e to a ta tto o or that Jar re ll’ s su pp lie r w a s a c tua lly

“ so me g uy [he] met at a bar from the east side,” it was nonethe less logic al for the jury to conclude, ba sed
on the e vid e nc e pr ov ide d b y

the Go ve rnme nt, that De fe nd ant not on ly ma de the ph on e c a lls to Jarr e ll but that Defe ndant was J arr ell’s s upplier. Be cause the evidence was sufficie nt for a rational juror to find g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt, this C ourt will not subst itute its own conclusion for that of the jury
. See Abdullah , 162 F.3d at 902. Moreove r, unl i k e t h e convic tion we re verse d in Sa un de rs , the jury ’s conc lusion that Def endant wa s a member

of the co n spiracy

is corrobor ated by

fing erpr int evidence . Def endant
conce des that his fing erpr int was discover ed on the adhesive side of a pie ce of masking tape a ffixed to the packa g e of c ocaine . Def endant a rg ues, howe ver, that the fin gerprint was deposited on the pie c e of ta pe a t so me tim e pr ior

to M arc h 9 , 2 00 7, mos t li ke ly wh e n D e fe nd ant wa s bo xing up hisNo. 08-4640

United States v. Nec hovski

-16- “D.J.” mix tapes, a

nd that J arr ell used t he same roll of t ape at a later time to packag e the kilog ram of coc aine. In support of this argument, Def endant r elies on t he testimony of expert witness Michae l Sweedo. Swee do testified t hat i n his controlled e x periment, fing erpr ints could last up to one y ear and still be of value for identification purposes. Acc ording ly , Def endant a sserts that the fing erpr int evidenc e wa s “too attenuated” to prove bey ond a re asonable doubt that D efe ndant was a member of t h e dr u g c o n s p i r a c y. The jury re a s o n a b ly c o u ld have c oncluded that the f inge rprint was de posited on the tape w hen De fe nd ant w a s p a c ka g ingthe c oc a ine . T his is c on sis ten t wi th Off ic e r L aws on ’s te sti mony

that a fi ng e rp ri nt w ou ld l ike ly

los e its e vid e nti ary

va lue in th e e ve nt t

hat it wa s r oll e d b a c k o nto the ro ll of tape . Reg ardle ss of the alter native theories proposed by Def endant, “ the cr itical point is t hat the jury could have draw n differ ent i nfer ence s from thi s evidenc e, and our m andate is to affir m when the jury ’s choice was a rational one –which it was he re.” See Un ite d Stat es v. A rn old , 486 F.3d 177, 182 (6th Cir. 2007). III . F or a ll o f t he re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he Di str ic t Co ur

t is AF F IR M ED
.