Opinion ID: 607457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges to the Conspiracy Convictions

Text: 28 To establish a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) an agreement between two or more persons to violate the federal controlled substances laws and (2) the defendant's willful joinder in that agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 249 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Clark, 928 F.2d 639, 641-42 (4th Cir. 1991). Proof of a conspiracy, and of a defendant's participation in it, may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Giunta, 925 F.2d at 764; United States v. Morrow, 914 F.2d 608, 612 (4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, it is not necessary that each co-conspirator know all the details of the unlawful plan or the identity of every other co-conspirator. See, e.g., Morrow, 914 F.2d at 612 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 962 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2811 (1991). Rather, it is sufficient to show that a defendant knew of the essential nature of the conspiracy and took action indicating his or her participation in it. See, e.g., Morrow, 914 F.2d at 612 (citation omitted); United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1205 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1105 (1985). 29 Considering the applicable legal standard, the challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conspiracy convictions are unpersuasive. The government's evidence at trial showed that beginning in April or May 1991, Senior and several unindicted coconspirators began traveling frequently from Washington, D.C. to Roanoke to distribute crack. This group later was joined by defendant Grant. Soon after their arrival in Roanoke, these individuals met Donnie Bundick and made arrangements to stay at Bundick's house during their trips to Roanoke. In exchange for lodging, Donnie Bundick was paid in cash or an equivalent amount of crack cocaine that he could and frequently did sell to, among others, the Randolphs. Moreover, testimony from the Randolphs clearly established that Donnie Bundick and Senior worked together in a narcotics distribution scheme. Although Senior claims that the testimony of the government witnesses was unworthy of belief, the jury obviously found the testimony more credible than that of Senior's lone witness, and an appellate court will not second guess a jury's credibility determinations. United States v. Stratton, 779 F.2d 820, 828 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1162 (1986); see also United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992) (observing that the task of courts reviewing sufficiency of the evidence is not to make judgments about the credibility of the witnesses.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1013 (1993). 30 Likewise, although James Bundick had been released from state prison only one week before his arrest on the underlying indictment, the government adduced ample evidence linking him to the narcotics distribution scheme alleged in the superseding indictment. Parris testified that, during the week before James Bundick's arrest, she bought crack from him on three separate occasions. Further testimony established that when some of James Bundick's crack was stolen, he repaid his brother for the loss, thereby permitting the jury to conclude that Donnie Bundick supplied James with crack to distribute and that the brothers were working together. Finally, on the day of his arrest, police discovered money in James Bundick's sock that had been used to make the controlled purchases at the Bundick residence in the days preceding the May 30 raid. Although a defense witness testified that James Bundick could have won the money playing cards with certain unindicted co-conspirators, the jury plainly was entitled to disbelieve this explanation. 31 Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all permissible inferences in its favor, there was more than sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that James Bundick and Senior knew of the conspiracy and willfully participated in it. 32