Opinion ID: 4537218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pitts: Sufficiency of Evidence

Text: Count Three charged that from January 2015 through December 17, 2015, in Miami and elsewhere, Pitts, Watkins, Edden and eight codefendants conspired to possess with intent to distribute heroin. Count Three attributed varying amounts of heroin to each defendant, with 100 grams or more attributed to Pitts and one kilogram or more attributed to Watkins and Edden. Pitts contends that the government failed to show that he had knowledge of the purpose of the conspiracy. He also challenges the jury’s individualized drug-quantity finding, which attributed 100 grams or more of heroin to him. We review de novo whether the evidence supports a conviction. United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 497 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. 14 Case: 17-13818 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 15 of 27 Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir.2013)). We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict, drawing all inferences in its favor, and “we are obliged to affirm the convictions if a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, the government” shoulders the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) “an agreement existed between two or more people to distribute the drugs;” (2) “the defendant . . . knew of the conspiratorial goal;” and (3) the defendant “knowingly joined or participated in the illegal venture.” United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082, 1089 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Once the existence of a conspiracy is established, a defendant’s guilt can be proved even if his participation is limited by comparison to the actions of other co-conspirators. United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1427-28 (11th Cir. 1998). A defendant’s guilt can be established even where his contact extends to only one or two of the co-conspirators, provided that “the agreement, with its concomitant knowledge of the general scope and purpose of the conspiracy and the defendant's intent to participate in achieving its illegal ends, is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1428. With evidence of repeated heroin transactions between Watkins and Pitts, a jury could reasonably infer an agreement to distribute heroin. United States v. 15 Case: 17-13818 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 16 of 27 Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 889 F.2d 1032, 1035–36 (11th Cir.1989)) (noting that “an agreement to distribute drugs ‘may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to [a] purchaser’”). The trial evidence demonstrated that Watkins supplied Pitts an average of two packs of heroin capsules every day, from spring 2015 through mid-August 2015, and Pitts brought Watkins the proceeds of his sales and kept thirty percent for himself. The evidence also supported findings beyond a reasonable doubt that Pitts knew about the essential nature of the conspiracy and that he took an active role in achieving its illegal ends. Jurors heard a recorded phone conversation in which Watkins and Pitts discussed the need to increase the pace of sales and avoid having tickets sitting around. During that conversation, Pitts reported his efforts, telling Watkins that he had pressured a subordinate to “push . . . up” sales. In another conversation, Pitts demonstrated his willingness to deal larger quantities of heroin by requesting an ounce, rather than his usual pack of capsules. Jurors also learned that Watkins and Pitts spoke in code language when planning their illegal transactions over the phone and that Pitts drove his son’s car to conduct business with Watkins. With this evidence, indicating that Pitts took steps to conceal the conspiracy, a jury could reasonably infer that he knew of and 16 Case: 17-13818 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 17 of 27 participated in the illegal scheme. United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 500 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Indeed, efforts to conceal a conspiracy may support the inference that a defendant knew of the conspiracy and joined it while it was in operation.”). Finally, we have no difficulty sustaining the jury’s finding that Pitts conspired to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams of more of heroin. Pitts contends that the government, at best, proved that he carried out several deliveries for Watkins that involved miniscule amounts of heroin, which “certainly” totaled less than 100 grams. But viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, the government proved that Pitts distributed heroin from spring 2015 through mid-August, 2015 and that he received two, 100-capsule packs from Watkins every day, except for a period when he received five packs every two to three days. The evidence also showed that each pack contained three to four grams of heroin. Even if Pitts began his distribution activities toward the end of spring, the evidence showed that his activities involved considerably more than 100 grams of heroin.