Opinion ID: 24411
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Zachery

Text: Rather than showing that the evidence against them had been 9 contradicted or had not shown one of the requisite elements, the defendants argue the insufficiency of the evidence by disparaging the reliability of the testimony against them. The defendants complain that Zachery’s uncorroborated testimony is not strong enough to base their convictions on, because Zachery was shown to have lied about his identity to his police handlers, and to have been an addict who was using and selling crack during the period of his cooperation with the police investigation. However, “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction if it is not incredible or otherwise unsubstantiated on its face.” United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1976). Moreover, Zachery’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other accomplice witnesses and law enforcement agents, all of whom were subject to thorough crossexamination. In light of this corroboration, and in the absence of arguments by the defendants that Zachery’s testimony was incredible on its face, we hold that Zachery’s testimony supports the convictions. b. Sufficiency of evidence to support Stevie’s convictions Five witnesses testified to Stevie’s activities (that he tested and sold methamphetamines, stored drugs in his leased house, beat up someone to extract a drug debt, pooled money with Jason to 10 buy one pound of methamphetamines, divided and processed drugs, delivered drugs, ordered payment of a crack debt, vandalized Zachery’s car in revenge for a drug debt, and sold crack in controlled buys). Additionally, Stevie was watched and tape recorded by police during the controlled buys. Officer Cogwell corroborated the occurrence of the controlled buys and Stevie’s participation in them. Maps generated using aerial photographs show that the stash house was within 1000 feet of two public playgrounds and a school. This evidence is sufficient to meet the elements of Stevie’s convictions on conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution within 1000 feet of a protected zone. c. Sufficiency of evidence to support Self’s conspiracy conviction Four witnesses testified regarding the relationship between Self and Holmes (that Self was Holmes’s cousin, that he delivered crack to Holmes and had crack picked up for delivery to Holmes, that he was seen with Holmes during drug transactions, that he and Holmes alternately would fulfill drug orders for customers). Self argues that some of the testimony regarded extrinsic acts; the government contends that this evidence was expressly admitted for the legitimate purpose of showing the formation of the conspiracy, 11 identity of the conspirators, relationship of the conspirators, and duration of the conspiracy. See United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825, 834 (5th Cir. 1991). We agree with the government’s contention, and hold that the testimony against Self was sufficient to support his convictions. d. Sufficiency of evidence to sustain Jason’s conspiracy conviction Three law enforcement agents testified that they observed Jason direct a confidential informant to Holmes in order to purchase crack. One witness testified that Jason tried to recruit him into the drug ring. Other witnesses testified that Jason had others store drugs for him, that he delivered drugs for his coconspirators, that he picked up drugs from suppliers listed in the indictment, that he beat up and had others beat up drug debtors, that he referred potential buyers to his co-conspirators, that he divided and processed drugs, and that he directed others to deliver drugs. This testimony was sufficient to sustain Jason’s convictions. e. Sufficiency of evidence to sustain John’s convictions Six witnesses testified that John sold marijuana. Two 12 testified that he delivered the marijuana on behalf of his brother Jason. Zachery testified that John sold him crack in two controlled buys within 1000 feet of an elementary school. This testimony is sufficient to sustain John’s convictions. f. Sufficiency of evidence to support Mosley’s conspiracy conviction One witness, corroborated by telephone records for the hotel room phone where Mosley was staying and for his pager, testified that he made two deliveries to Mosley of crack cocaine. This corroborated testimony is sufficient to support Mosley’s convictions. g. Sufficiency of evidence to support Ortega’s convictions Evidence showed that one of the stash houses, used for storage, manufacture, and distribution of crack and methamphetamine, was leased to and maintained by Ortega. Zachery, corroborated by tape recordings, testified to a controlled buy involving Ortega. The aerial maps reveal that the site of the buy was within 1000 feet of a protected zone. Another controlled buy was testified to by the informant and by a police officer. This evidence was sufficient to support Ortega’s convictions. 13