Opinion ID: 4529971
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count Four: marijuana

Text: Rosario claims that the evidence was insufficient on this count because there is no way that the jury could have believed testimony that he sold marijuana and cocaine at the drug point. The jury convicted Rosario of possession with intent to distribute cocaine but found no amount of cocaine attributable to him. This inconsistency, Rosario maintains, establishes that the jury did not believe the witnesses who connected Rosario to cocaine; so, to the extent that the same witnesses connected Rosario to marijuana, the jury must have disbelieved them on the marijuana question too. Once we eliminate this testimony, Rosario concludes, there is not enough evidence left to convict him on the substantive marijuana count. We disagree. Inconsistent verdicts often are a product of jury lenity. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984). Therefore, sufficiency review on one count should be independent of the jury's determination that evidence on another count was insufficient. Id. at 67; see also Mena-Robles, 4 F.3d at 1031 ([T]he jury is empowered to accept or reject, in whole or in part, any testimony.). Furthermore, Rosario was arrested while fleeing - 8 - La Boveda with eighty-one baggies of marijuana. [I]ntent to distribute drugs can legitimately be inferred from factors [including] quantity . . . . Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 678. The evidence was sufficient to support Rosario's conviction on the substantive marijuana count.