The Honor able Joseph M. Hood, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n Dist ri ct of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0344n.06 Filed: June 18, 2008 No. 06-1982 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 S TAF F OR D L EE G I LL , Petitioner-Appellant , On Appea l from the v. United States District Court for the Easter n District of Michig an J OHN C AS ON , Respondent-

Appellee

.

______________________________ Be fore : KENNEDYand MARTI N, Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. * KENN EDY, J. Mr . St a ff or d L e e Gi ll a

pp e a ls t he jud g me nt of the dis tr ic t c ourt de nyinghis petition for a wr it of habea s corpus unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 4
. Mr. Gill was convic ted in Michig an state cour t of possession with intent to deliver more than 650 g rams of c ocaine , in violation of M I CH . C OMP . L A WS § 333.7401(2)( a)( i) (1998), and conspirac y to possess with intent to deliver more than 650 g rams of coca ine, i n violation of M I CH . C OMP . L A WS § 769.12 (1998). Mr. Gill a rg ues that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus beca use t here was no evidenc e from which any rational trier

of fac t could find that he a

nd his coconspirator conspire d to possess with intent to deliver more than 650 g rams of coca ine. Be cause Michig an law require s proof that Mr. Gill’s c oconspirator was a war e of the minimum amount of cocaine charg ed in the i ndictment, and bec ause the re w as no proof from which any

rational trier of fac t c ould so find, we find that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support2

Mr. Gill’s conspirac y

conviction. We there fore REVERSE the judgment of th e d i s t ri ct court and GR AN T a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. BACK GR OUND I . Fa ctual B ackg round At 3:30 PM on J anuary

29, 1998, office rs in the Oakla nd County

Nar cotics Enfor ceme nt Team executed a se arc h war rant at 321 West Hopkins Avenue in Pontiac, Michig an. The sear ch
wa rr an tp erm i t t edt h e o ff

i ce rs t o s ei z e d o cu m en t s re l at edt o M r. S t af fo rdL ee Gi l l ’s dru g t ra ff

i ck i n g. Whil e Mr . G ill re sid e d a t 18 Jef fe rs on Str e e t in Pon tia c , M ic hig a

n, of fi c e rs ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to be lie ve that Mr . G ill wa s c on du c tin g dr ugop e ra tio ns a t 32 1 We st H op kin s. When office rs executed the sea rch w arr anted, they

immediately

found Mr. Gill and a

Mr. Andre Wellons eng ag ed in criminal activity in the ki tchen. Mr. Gil l was seated nex t to Mr. Wellons at t he kit chen table. On t he kit chen table i n front of both of the m was 111.68 g rams of c rac k coca ine in the proce ss of being packa g ed. Mr. Wellons wa s cutting and weig hing the cra ck; in front of Mr. Wellons were a

razor blade , a plate containing a larg e, half moon pie ce of cra ck coc aine a s well as
sma lle r p ie c e s th at ha d b ro ke n o ff the larg e r dis k, and an e le c tr on ic sc a le wi th o ne -a nd -a -h a lf g ra ms of cr ack on it. Mr. Gill was putt ing the weig hed piec es into plastic sandwich ba g g ies; in front of Mr. Gill were bag g ies containingcra ck coc aine a s well as a box of sandwich bag g ies. On the table we re eig hty -four

bag g ies of cra ck valued at $100 eac h, as well as nineteen bag g ies of cra ck value d at $150
eac h. The c rac k in the kitchen had been rec ently made. Crack is made by mix ing pow der c ocaine , a base ag ent, and water , and then heating the mix ture. The cra ck had be en made using ba king soda , which wa s found in the cupboa rd above the microwa

ve, mix ing it with pow der c ocaine and water,The southea st bedroom was loc ated down a hallway from the kitche n, J .A. at 107-08, in the 1 back of the house, J.A. at 123. M s . C o n n i e W el l o n s i s t h e mo t h er o f M r. An dre W el l o n s , wh o wa s as s i s t i n g M r. Gi l l we i gh 2 and pac kag e the c rac k coca ine in the kitchen. J .A. at 150. Despite be ing the son of the homeowne r, Mr. Wellons did not live at 321 West Hopkins. J .A. at 150. A fing erpr int f

rom Mr. Dowdle was also found on one of the Mason jars in the k i t chen. 3 J .A. at 157. 3 and the n mi c ro wa

vin g the mixture in g la ss M a so n ja rs , o ne of wh ic h w a s f

ound on the kit c he n ta

ble

and on e of wh ic h wa s found ne ar the mic ro wa ve . J.A. a t 13 4- 35 , 1 38 . T he dis k o f c ra c k w a s “ sti ll actua lly soft and pliable, . . . it wa s like a wa rm, fre sh-bake d cookie.” J .A. at 137-38, 141. G iven the size and state of th e d i s k of cr ack, it had likely been ma de roug hly

10-29 minutes prior to the office rs’ e ntry . Alt. J .A. at 205-06. The only ingr edient or t o o l n ec essary to make cr ack c ocaine absent fr om the kitchen wa s powder c ocaine . I ndeed, de spite a caref ul sear ch and despite the fa ct that powder

coca ine leave s a re sidue, there wer e no b ag g ies or other rec eptac les locate d in the kitchen that had pow der c ocaine residue. J.A. at 138-40. Upon furthe r s ea rc h o f t he home, the of fice rs locate d powder

coca ine in the closet of the southeast bedr oom. The homeow ner, Ms. Connie Wellons, share d the southeast bedr oom with her 1 2 boy friend, Mr . Albert Dowdle, J .A. at 157, and both wer e pre sent in the bedroom whe n the sea rch
war rant wa s executed, J.A. at 108. W hen the of fice r ente red the bedroom, he noticed that the closet do or wa s o pe n, and

a “ c le a r, pla sti c , T up pe rw are -l ike , s ho e size ty pe bo x” wa s v isi ble on

a sh e lf in the closet. The clear box contained six , Z iploc-ty pe bagg ies filled with a white, powde ry substance that upon analy sis proved to be 631.10 g rams of powder coca ine. A thumbprint fr om Mr . Gill was found on the top of the box, and three fing erpr ints from Mr. Dowdle wer e found on the bottom of the box. J .A. at 156. Also found in the c loset, inside a diffe rent, opa que plastic box, was an item

3Ms. Carl a Wel lon s wa s Mr. Gi ll’ s g ir lf ri e nd a s we ll as the da

ug hte r of Ms. Connie Wel lon s, 4 the ow ne r o f 3 21 Wes t H op kin s, and the sis te r o f M r. Wel lon s, who was ass istingMr . G ill in weig hing a

nd packa g ing c rac k coca ine. J .A. at 155. 4 of cor responde nce be aringMr. Gill’s name and, direc tly underne ath the cle ar box of powder coca ine,
was a contra ctor’s w ork orde r for 321 West Hopkins in M r. Dowdle ’s name. J.A. at 122-23, 144. There was fur

ther e vidence connec ting Mr. G ill to 321 W est Hopkins Av en u e. W hen
sear ching that residenc e, the office rs located a title to a 1987 Volvo re g istered in Mr. Gill’s name

. J .A. at 144. Additionally , during a search of Mr. Gil l’s residenc e, 18 J eff erson St ree t, office rs found

a Euro pe Autom oti ve bil l add re sse d to Mr. Gi ll at 3 21 Wes t H op kin s A ve nu e . J.A . at 16 3- 64 . A lso found duringthe sea

rch of Mr. Gil l’s house wa s a bank state ment for Ms. Carla Wellons addre ssed

4 to 18 J eff erson Stree t, as well as other drugpara

pherna lia. Upon his arr est, Mr. Gil l made an incriminating statement t o the police. He stated that “he
was c aug ht red-ha

nded[,]

. . . that [t he poli ce] caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.” J .A. at 171. When asked if the c rac k on the kitchen table was his, Mr. Gill admitted it was. When asked what he w as doing at Ms. Connie Wellons’s re sidence , Mr Gill “ stated that he’d broug ht the coca ine over to 321 West Hopkins, and at that a rea he wa s cutting it up, maki n g i t re ady for sa le. . . . He [further] stated [t hat] all the coca ine was his.” J.A. at 171. W hile there is ambiguity as to whethe r Mr. Gil l meant that he brought crac k coca ine or powde r coc aine into the house, the evidenc e viewe d
mos t f a vo ra bly to t he pr os e c uti on

su pp or ts a find ingthat Mr . G ill me ant p ow de r c oc a ine . T his infere nce is de rived fr om the fac t that the cra ck coca ine found in the kitche n was re cently made at 321 West Hopkins, and that powder c ocaine is require d to make cr ack c ocaine

. Ba sed upon all the a

bove evide nce, the jury convicted Mr. Gill of both possession with i ntent to deliver more than 650 g rams of coca ine and conspirac y to possess with intent to deliver more than5

650 g rams of coca ine. Mr. Gill wa s then sentenc ed to two, consec utive life terms in prison, which
e a c h r e qu ir e d a

min imum of

tw e nty se rv e d y e ars . I I . Procedur al History On dir e c t a pp e a l to the Mic hig an Cour t of Ap pe a ls, Mr . G ill c ha lle ng e d, a mon g oth e r t hin g s, the su ffici ency of

the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his se pa

ra te c on vic tio n f

or c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith intent to deliver more tha n 650 g rams of c ocaine . His pri m ar y ar gument was that ther e wa s an absenc e of e vidence to support a finding that Mr. Wellons was awa re of the powder

coca ine in the southeast bedr oom, as well as a n ab s ence of evide nce to support a finding that Mr. Wellons was
awa re of the amount of powde r cocai n e in the southeast bedr oom. Mr. Gill arg ued that such evidenc e, evide nce of

Mr. Wellons’s knowledg e, wa s require d to support his, Mr. Gil l’s, conviction for c onspiracy

to possess with intent to deliver more than 650 g rams of c ocaine under M I CH . C OMP . L A WS § 769.12 (1998). The Michig an Court of Appea ls r ejec ted Mr. Gill’s challeng e. I ts pertinent re asoning was
a s f oll ow s: [T] he jury

could re asonably

conclude that the cr ack co ca i ne in the kit c he n w hic h [Mr . G ill ] an d [Mr .] Wel lon s we re pa c ka g ingfo r s a le
wa s ma de fr om t

he po wd e r c oc a ine in the be dr oo m w hic h [Mr . G ill ] broug ht into the house. I n addit i o n , the evidenc e showe d that the house wa s owned by Connie Wellons, Andre Wellons’ mother, and also that items of corresponde nce bear ing Andre’ s name we re f ound in the house. Ac cordingl y , t he prose cution prese nted suffic ient6 evidenc e that [Mr. Gill] and [Mr.] W ellons conspired to possess a nd de liv e r t he c oc a ine fo un d in

the be dr oo m. Peo pl e v. G ill , N o. 22 02 61 , 2 00 1 WL 82 44 47 , at *2 (M ic h. Ct. Ap p. July 20 , 2 00 1) (p e r c ur iam) (unpublished). F u rth e r r e v ie w in th e M ic h ig an c o u rts p r o v e d u n a v a il in g to M r . G il l. A f te r the Court of Appea ls ruled ag ainst him, the Michiga n Suprem e C ourt denied Mr . Gill leave to appe al that conclusion. On state post-c onviction review , the state trial court denied Mr. G ill’s moti on for r elief. L eave to appea l the trial court’s conclusion was denied by both the Michig an Court of Appe als and the Mic hig an Su

pr e me Court
. Mr. Gill then rene wed his c halleng e reg arding his conspirac y conviction by

filing a petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus befor e the United States D istrict Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an. The district court, throug h its adoption of the rec ommendat i o n an d repor t of the mag istrate judg e, found tha t sufficient e vidence supported Mr. Gill’s conspira cy conviction. Specifica lly , the court held t hat t he following evidence was suffic ient: “(1) the testimony about how
cra ck coc aine is made from powde r coc aine; (2) the a bsence of any

powder coca ine in the kitchen with the finished cr ack c ocaine ; and (3) [Mr.] W ellons’s additional ties to the house where the
coca ine was f

ound.” J.A. at 53. After denying his petition, the district court did g rant Mr. Wellons
a ce rtificate of appe alability reg ardingthis iss ue, allowing Mr. W ellons to seek f urther r eview in our
c ourt
. AN AL YSI S Mr. Gill argues on appe al that the district cour t erre d in denying his pe tition for a writ of habea s corpus. M r. Gi l l ar gu es that he is entitled to a wr it of habea s corpus be cause insufficient7

evidenc e supports his conspirac y con v i ct i o n , namely

beca use there was no e vidence that Mr. Wellons was awa

re of the ex istence of the l arg e amount of powde r coc aine in the southea st bedroom
c los e t. We c on du c t de novo revie w of the district c ourt’s denia l of Mr. Eady ’s petition, which was based on a deter

mination that the state court did not unre asonably apply settled Supreme Court prec edent whe n it concluded that s u ff icient evidenc e supported Mr . Gill’s conviction. See J oseph

v . Co y le , 469 F.3d 441, 453- 54 (6th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, our re view is constra ined by the pre vious state court deter mination. W e can disag ree with a state court’s leg al deter mination only when it wa s “a de cision that was c ontrary

to . . . clear ly

established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1) (2006). “A state-c ourt decision will c erta inly be contr ary to [the Sup re me Court ’s ] cl e arl y e sta bli sh e d p re c e de nt i f t

he state c ourt a

pp lie s a ru le that c on tr a dic ts the g overninglaw set for

th in [ the Supreme Court’s] case s.” W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000). Whe n th e state c ourt c or re c tly ide nti fi e s th e le g a l ru le to a pp ly , we c an d isa g re e wi th a state court’s a pplication of that rule when it was “ a decision that . . . involved an unre asonable application of cle arly established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). “ A state-c ourt dec ision that corre ctly identifies t he g overningleg al rule but

a pp lie s it un re a so na

bly to t he fa c ts o f a

pa rt ic ula r p ri so ne r’ s c a se cert ainly wo uld qu a lif y a s a decision ‘involv[ing] an unrea sonable a pplication of . . . clearly

established F eder al law.’ ” W illiams , 529 U.S. at 407- 08 (alter ations in origina l). We are mindful “that an un re as on ab le application of fede ral lawis differe nt from an incorrect a p p li c a ti o n o f f

e d e ral law .” Id. a t 41 0 ( e mph a se s in orig inal). We are also mindful that an application of Supreme C o urt prec edent c an be f ound“The law ther efor e commands de fer ence at two levels in this case —first , t o t he jury ’s 5 v e r d i c ta s c o n t e mp l a t e d

b y Jack son , an d , s e c o n d , to th e s tate c o u rt’ s c o n s id e r a ti o n o f th e jury ’s verdic t as dictated by

AEDPA.” Parker v . Renico , 506 F.3d 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2007). Despite two levels of de fer ence , we ha ve bef ore f ound state cour

ts’ applica t ion of the Jack son standard unrea sonable. See, e .g. , id. a t 45 2; Brown v. Palmer , 441 F.3d 347, 353 ( 6th Cir. 2006). 8 unre a so na

ble e ve n th ou g h th e a

pp lic a ble pr e c e de nt p ro vid e s onl y a g e ne ra l r ule ; “ [t]he [ha

be a s] sta tute r e c o g n iz e s . . . th a t e v e na g e n e r a l s ta

n d ar d ma y b e a p p li e d in anu n r e a s o n a

b le ma nner.” Panetti v. Quarterman , 127 S. Ct . 2842, 2858 (2007). B eca use the state c ourt’s dec ision was
unre a so na

ble , w e g ra

nt M r. Gi ll’ s p e tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a established the test for c halleng es base d on insufficient e vidence , which is M r. Gi ll’ s c ha lle ng e to h is c on vic tio n. I t he ld t hat a re vie wi ngc ourt ’s ta sk

is to d e te r mi n e w h e th e r

th e r e c o r d

e v id e n c e c o u ld

r e a s o n a b ly s u pport a findingof guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. . . . [ T]he releva nt qu e sti on is w he the r, a ft e r v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution, anyrational trier o f fac t could have fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fa ct fa irly

to r esolve conflicts in testimony , to weig h the evidenc e, and to d ra w r e a so na ble inf e re nc e s f ro m ba sic fa c ts to u lti mate fa c ts. 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) ( emphasis in orig inal) (c itation omit ted). 5 We determine w hether

there was suff

icient evidenc e “in lig ht of applica ble [Michigan] law definingthe eleme nt[ s] of [ the cr ime].” Id. at 324. Under Michig an state la

w, [t ]o be convicted of c onspiracy to possess with intent t o deliver a controlled substanc e, the [state] must prove that (1) the de fenda nt possessed the spe cific intent t o d eliver the statutory minimum as char g ed, (2) his c oconspirator s possessed the specific intent to de liver the statut or

y min imum a s c ha

rg e d, and (3) the de fe nd ant a

nd hisWe note that Michig an law is in stark c ontrast to fede ral conspiracy druglaw. Unde r 6 fede ral law, the quantit y of narcotics i s not an eleme nt of the off ense. United States v. J

inadu , 98 F.3d 239, 247 ( 6th Cir. 1996). I nstead, the quantity of narc otics is only a sentenc ing f actor , and the c o n s p i r a t o r

c anb e h e l d

r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r t h e f o r s e e a b l e a m o u n to f

n ar c o t i c s i n v o l v e d

i nt h e c o n s p i r a c y. Id. at 248-49. We admit that it m ay

seem a littl e odd that, despite the fac t that Mr
. Gill is t he petitioner 7 in this case, we are focusing on the proof reg ardingMr. Wellons’s knowledg e. This proof, how ever , is require d by

Michig an law to es tablish Mr. Gill’s guilt of conspira cy with intent to deliver 650 g rams of c ocaine

. Se e Ma ss , 628 N.W.2d at 549. I ndeed, the Supreme Court ha s stated that “[u]nder our s y ste m of

c ri min a l ju sti c e e ve n a thi e f is e nti tle d to c omp la in t hat he ha s b e e n unc on sti tut ion a lly convicted a

nd imprisoned as a bur g lar.” Jack son , 443 U.S. at 323-24 (c itation omit ted). 9 coconspirators possessed the specific intent to combine to deliver the statutory minimum as cha

rg ed to a third pe rson. People v . Justice , 562 N. W.2 d 652 , 659 (M ic h. 19 97 ); ac c or d Pe op le v . M

as s , 628 N.W.2d 540, 549 (Mich. 2001). To put the poi nt more plain, the pr oof in this case must establish “not just that [M r.

6 Wellons] conspired to possess with an intent to deliver some amount of coc aine, but rather, [that Mr. Wellons] had conspired to possess with an intent to deliver the statutory minimum of 650 grams,” as cha rg ed in this case. Se e Ma ss , 6 2 8 N
. W. 2 d a t 5 4 9 ( e mp h a s is in o r ig in a l)

. I ndeed, if the 7 g overnme nt only proves that the conspiracy involved some unspecifie d amount of coc aine, then the conspirator s can only “be guilty of conspiracy to deliver less than fifty g rams of coca ine.” Id. at 550. Af te r c or re c tly ide nti fy ingthe g ov e rn ingle g a l stand ard , the Mic hig an Cour t of App e a ls h e ld that sufficie nt evidence established Mr. Well o n s ’s k nowledg e of the exis tence and amount of the powder coca ine in the south ea s t b ed ro om closet. The pr oof it found to support Mr. Wellons’s knowledg e wa s: the fac t that (1) Mr. Wellons was helpingMr. Gill packa g e the cr ack c ocaine in the kitchen; (2) Mr . Gill admitted to bringingpowder coca ine i nto the hous e; (3) Mr. Wellons’s mot her, Ms. Connie Wel lon s, ow ne d the ho us e ; and (4 ) “ c or re sp on de nc e be ari ngAn dr e [Wel lon s]’ s n a me w[as] found in the house.” Gi ll , 2001 WL 824447, at *2.We acknow ledg e that other inferenc es may be dra wn, for instanc e that the c orre spondence 8 was junk m ail and provided no indication reg arding how often Mr. W ellons visited the hom e, but we a re to dra w all infer ence s in favor of the prosec ution. Jack

son , 443 U.S. at 318-19. Th e re wa s no e vid e nc e to e ve n e sta bli sh that Mr . We llo ns ha d e ve n w a lke d b y the do or to 9 the southeast bedr oom, in whose closet the powder coca ine was located, le t alone that Mr. Wellons ha d b e e n in sid e of

the be dr oo m. 10 We find that the s tate court’s conclusion was rea ched throug h an unre asonable application of J ac k so n v . V irg ini a . See 28 U.S.C. § 2254( d )(1). When looking at the la st two cited fac ts, the only possible re as on ab le infere nce is that Mr. Wel lo n s o c c a s io nally spent time at his mother’s house. I t would be re asonable to infer that, a s the son of the homeow n er , M r. W el l o ns likely visited the ho me . Th is inf

e re nc e is co nf

ir me d by the fa c t tha t the re we re “ a fe w i te ms o f c or

re sp on de nc e ” wi th Mr. Wellons’s name on them found at t h e h o u s e. J .A. at 142. Fur ther infe renc e, for

instance 8 reg ardinghow often Mr . Wellons was at the house or the place s in the house Mr. Wellons had spent time, cannot be dr awn. The re w as no testimony to establish the rela t i v e im portanc e of the
corr espondenc e found at the house, no testimony reg arding the address to which the cor responde nce was sent, a

nd no testimony

reg ardingwher e in the house the corr espondenc e wa s found. Mr. Wellons’s occa sional visitation at 321 W est Hopkins, combined with (1) the assistance he provide d Mr. Gill in packa g ing the cra ck in the ki tchen, (2) t he fact t hat Mr. Gill had broug ht the powder coca ine into the house; and (3) the fac t that the cra ck in the kitchen ha d been r ece ntly made,
s t i l l f a i l s t o e s t a

b l i s h an y re as on ab le infere nce that Mr. Wellons was awar e of the exis tence and amount of powde r coc aine in a box in the southeast b ed ro o m . T h ere was no e vidence that the powder coca ine was e ver in the kitche n, which is the only place in the home wher e the e vidence
e sta bli sh e d M r. Wel lon s h a d b e e n. Ev en if on e c ou ld i nf e r t hat th e po wd e r c oc a ine ha d at so me 9 point been in the kitchen, the re w as no evide nce r eg arding when Mr. Wellons arr ived at the house ,I ndeed, beca use the powder coca ine was in individual bag g ies within the plastic box , the 10 e nti re bo x wou ld n ot h a ve to be take n to the kit c he n s o a s ma ke the c ra c k. Th is i s im

po rt ant b e c a

us e the g ov e rnme nt h a d to pr ov e that Mr . We llo ns wa s awa re that th e re wa s at le a st r ou g hly 54 0 g ra ms of powde r coc aine; the g o v er n m en t h ad proved that Mr. Wellons was looking at 111.68 g rams of c ra c k o n th e ta

ble , b ut t he se pa rate c on sp ir a c y

c ha rg e wa s for a t lea st 6 50 g ra ms o f c oc a ine . Wh ile the bo x ce rt a inl y

c ou ld h a ve be e n ta

ke n in to t he ki tch en whi le Mr . We llo ns wa s p re se nt, the re is simply no evidenc e to indicate whether it was. Jack

son require s that infere nces be rea sonable; we could hy pothesize that one way to make the cra ck could have included taking the bo x o f p o wder coca ine to the k i t chen w hile Mr. Wellons was prese nt and in his sight, but there is simpl y no evidenc e to indicate that such a hy pothesis is reasona

ble. Indeed, in Jack

son th e S u p re m e C o u rt made c lear

that sufficie nt evidence is a closer revie w than the a

bsence of any

evidenc e. 443 U.S. at 31 5- 16 . “ [I ]t c ou ld n ot s e ri ou sly be argue d th a t [] a ‘m od ic um’ of e vid e nc e c ou ld b y

its e lf ratio na lly support a convic tion bey ond a re asonable doubt.” Id. at 320. At oral a rg ument, the state a

rg ued that such a

relationship co u l d b e rea sonably inferr ed 11 from the e v id e n c e b e c a

u s e th e e v id e n c e e s ta

b li s h e d th a t d r u g d e a li n g w a s a

“ f a mi ly a f f a ir

. ” T he reco rd , h oweve r, fa ils to bear this out. I nstead, such a n argument is tantamount to guilt by a sso c ia tio n; t

he c ri me a t is su e re qu ir e s k no wl e dg e and

the fa c t that th e re c or d s up po rt s a re a so na ble inf e re nc e that on e fa

mil y me mbe r h a d suc h kno wl e dg e do e s n ot, in t his c a se , s up po rt

a re a so na ble infere nce that a diffe rent fa mily member ha d such knowledg e. Indeed, the Michig an Supreme Court has held that “[g]uilt by association in a nd of itself is not sufficie nt to sustain a conviction.” Pe op le v. Brynsk i , 8 1 N .W. 2d

374, 37 7 ( Mic h. 19 57 ); ac c or d People v . Sobczak, 73 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Mich. 1955). Although the police had se arc hed Mr. Gill’s house, the re w as no evide nce introduced at 12 the trial to show that Mr. Wellons had any connec tion whatsoever

to the house (i.e., that Mr. Wellons had bee n there , had stored pr operty there , etc.)

. 11 i.e., whethe r he would have been there when the pow der c ocaine was pre sent in the kitchen. There 10

was no e vidence of any

sort of l ong -term relationship or course of de aling betwee n Mr. Wellons and Mr. Gill. There was no evidenc e to show that Mr. Gil l had ex tensive t rust in Mr. W ellons. There

11

was no e vidence that Mr. W ellons had ever been t o Mr. Gil l’s house at 18 J eff erson Stree t. The

12 absenc e of a

course of dea ling or

extensive trust is particula rly important g iven the fa ct that there was almost six times as m uch powder cocaine found in the s outheast bedr oom closet as ther e wa s cra ck found in the kitchen. A d d i t ionally , there was no e vidence that more c rac k was g oing to be made, and ther efor e that Mr. Wellons had to be a war e that ther e wa s over 600 a dditional gr ams of powde r
c oc a ine . L a stl y , the re wa s n o e vid e nc e re g ard ingho w o r whe n M r. Wel lon s h a d a rr ive d at 32 1 We stI f Mr. Gill had drive n Mr. Wellons to t he house, f or instance , perha

ps t h en i t woul d be 13 rea sonable to inf

er that Mr. Gill ha d broug ht the box of powder coca ine with him and th at Mr. Wellons had witnessed Mr. Gill load and unload the box

. I t could also provide some evidenc e fr om wh ic h to re a so na

bly inf e r t hat Mr . G ill ha d a

mor e e sta

bli sh e d r e latio ns hip wi th M r. Wel lon s. 12 Hopkins Avenue

. Thus, while there was e vidence that would permit the infer ence that Mr. Wellons 13

was a member of a conspirac y to distribute the cra ck coca ine in the kitchen, there was no e vidence that Mr . We llo ns c on sp ir e d to dis tr ibute the g rate r q ua nti ty of po wde r c oc a ine in t he so uth e a st be dr oo m c los e t. Fur ther unde rmining a

ny infere nce that Mr . Wellons was awar e of the coca ine in the closet
was the evidenc e that provided aff irmative infere nces that Mr. Wellons wa s n o t M r. Gill’s
c oc on sp ir a tor

in r e g ard s to the po wd e r co c a ine

. Th e re wa s evi de nc e that Mr . D ow dle , M s. Connie Wellons’s boy friend, ha d previously handled both the c lear , plas tic box containing the powder
coca ine as we ll as the g lass jar used to micr owave the powder coca ine to make the cra ck. I ndeed, the box of powder coca ine was found in the closet of the bedroom Mr. Dowdle c o h ab i t at ed. Fur thermore , the powder coca ine was visible to the room’s occupa nts throug h the open closet door,

and Mr . D ow dle wa s f

ound in th e bedro om whe n th e po lic e e xec ute d th e se arc h w arr ant. Additionally , direc tly

underne ath the box of powder c ocaine was a contra ctor’s work order i n Mr. Dowdle’ s name for

the house at 321 West Hopkins Avenue. L astly , Mr. Dowdle was living in the house and w as datingthe homeowne r. B eca use there was sig ni fi ca n t evidenc e re g ardingMr. Dowdle’ s knowledg e of a nd interac tion with the powder coca ine, t he supposi tion that Mr. Wellons had to be involved is made more unre asonable

. Viewingthe t otality of t he evidence above, it is clea r Mr. Gill’s conspirac y

conviction is not supported by

sufficie nt evidence . I ndeed, the re is bare ly a “modicum” of evide nce, if that, proving that Mr
. Wel lon s wa s awa re of the e xiste nc e or a mou nt of the po wd e r c oc a ine in t he sout he a st13

bedroom c loset. Whil e Mr. Gill was properly convicted of possession with intent to deliver the cra ck
coca ine in the kitchen a

nd the powder

coca ine in the southeast bedroom closet, Mr. Gill c ould not be convic ted of c onspiring to possess with intent to deliver the powder coca ine without proof of Mr

. Wellons’s knowle dg e reg ardingthat powder coca ine. We find unrea sonable the Michig an Court of Appea ls conclusion that there was e vidence establishing Mr . Wellons’s knowledg e of the powder
coca ine. We there fore g rant Mr. G ill a writ of habe as cor pus for his conspira cy

conviction. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district court is REVERSED and Mr. Gill’s petition for a wr it of habea s corpus is GRANTED

.