Opinion ID: 2994250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Tom first argues that there was insuffi- cient evidence presented at trial to hold him liable as an aider and abettor of the armed bank robbery./2 Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is an uphill battle and the defendant bears a heavy burden. United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 1999). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and we affirm the conviction if any rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Thor- nton, 197 F.3d 241, 253-54 (7th Cir. 1999). To prove armed bank robbery, the gov- ernment must show . . . that a bank was forcibly robbed, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2113(a), and that by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, the bank robber assaulted someone or put lives in jeopardy. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2113(d). United States v. Woods, 148 F.3d 843, 846 (7th Cir. 1998). To show that Tom is guilty of aiding and abetting in the armed bank robbery, the government must prove not only that [he] knew a bank robbery would occur, but also that a weapon would likely be used in the crime. Id. Tom contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of aiding and abetting in the armed bank robbery be- cause there was no proof that he knew James was planning to carry a gun or that James used a gun during the robbery. The evidence presented at trial, however, fails to support this argument. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, there is ample proof from which a jury could con- clude that Tom knew his brother planned to carry a gun and that James used a gun during the bank robbery./3 At trial, Tom admitted knowing that James owned a gun. The brothers specifi- cally planned for the gun-owning James to take care of the bank security guard during the robbery. A bank security pho- tograph shows James wielding a gun when the Wallace brothers entered the bank and while Tom was standing directly next to James. Witnesses testified that when James took the bank security guard’s gun, James shouted at the guard, Give me your weapon. Get on the ground. Additionally, when a customer raised his head, James yelled at the customer, You want me to blow your god damned head off? Get your head back down. The jury’s conclusion that Tom knew he was aiding and abetting in an armed bank robbery was completely reasonable. Tom also points to the fact that the jury found him not guilty of using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c), but guilty of aiding and abetting in an armed bank robbery. According to Tom, this genuinely inconsistent verdict should require us to relax what he calls the strict and almost unreachable standard for determining insufficiency of the evidence. (Appellant’s Brief at 17-18.) We reject this argument; even assuming, as Tom does, that the jury convicted him only under an aiding and abetting theory, there is no inconsistency in the verdict. To convict Tom of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, the government merely had to show that he knew that a weapon would likely be used by someone to effect the robbery. Woods, 148 F.3d at 846. Because Tom could be convicted of aiding and abetting without proof that he per- sonally carried or used a gun, nothing about the jury’s verdict can be inconsis- tent. The jury’s verdict seems to say that Tom knew his brother used a gun during the robbery (thus, he is guilty of aiding and abetting), but that Tom him- self never used or carried a gun (thus, he is not guilty of the sec. 924(c) charge). This conviction and acquittal result is both internally consistent and supported by the evidence./4