Opinion ID: 158495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence--Conspiracy

Text: 7 Mr. Eads contends that count 1 of the Third Superseding Indictment should have been dismissed on the grounds that the evidence failed to establish his involvement in the charged conspiracy, but instead established multiple, separate conspiracies. We review this challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the circumstantial and direct evidence along with the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, to determine whether a reasonable jury could find [Mr. Eads] guilty of a single conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Vaziri, 164 F.3d 556, 565 (10th Cir. 1999). 8 Conspiracy requires proof of (1) an agreement with another person to break the law; (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) knowing and voluntary involvement in the conspiracy; and (4) interdependence among the alleged conspirators. Id. Count 1 of the Third Superceding Indictment charged Mr. Eads with conspiring with others from March 15, 1996 through June 10, 1996. See 1 R. doc. 155 at 1-2. Mr. Eads argues that the evidence at trial established only that he was involved in a drug transaction on April 9, 1996, while there was abundant evidence that other alleged co-conspirators were engaged in a massive operation to manufacture explosives, modify firearms and then exchange bombs and guns for drugs. Aplt. Reply Brief at 2. 9 We think there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Mr. Eads participated in the charged conspiracy. There was considerable evidence of an agreement and cooperation between Mr. Eads and Mr. Bernhardt. See 8 R. at 77, 90-92; 9 R. at 112. The videotape shows that Mr. Eads had known Mr. Bernhardt for four months prior to the April 9 transaction, traded the firearms on behalf of Mr. Bernhardt, and attempted to phone him several times during the transaction. See 1 R. Supp. (redacted videotape). When the undercover agent and informant indicated that they would be coming to Colorado in a few weeks, Mr. Eads indicated that he was the contact person for the operation: I'm the only in-let. It's the truth. I'm the only one hustler there is, in the whole area. 1 R. Supp.; Aplt. App. tab 1 at 36. Mr. Eads indicated that he had been in the business 22 years, 1 R. Supp.; Aplt. App. tab 1 at 20, and that, since he had been back, he had been doing it all. 1 R. Supp.; Aplt. App. tab 1 at 45. 10 Even though Mr. Eads claims to have had no contact with other alleged conspirators, he need not know of the existence or identity of the other members of the conspiracy or the full extent of the conspiracy [as long as he has] a general awareness of both the scope and the objective of the enterprise. United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 669-70 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Further, it is generally sufficient for purposes of a single-conspiracy finding that a conspirator knowingly participated with a core conspirator in achieving a common objective with knowledge of the larger venture. Vaziri, 164 F.3d at 565 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We hold that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Mr. Eads on the conspiracy count.