Opinion ID: 61205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review de novo “whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 2003). We will affirm the jury’s verdict “if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). On review, the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.” Id. (quotation omitted). We are “bound by the jury’s credibility determinations, and by its rejection of the inferences raised by the defendant.” United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). “The evidence need not exclude 7 every hypothesis of innocence or be completely inconsistent with every conclusion other than guilt because a jury may select among constructions of the evidence.” United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1391 (11th Cir. 1997). Conspiracy to possess heroin with the intent to distribute requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that a conspiracy existed; (2) that the defendant knew of it; and (3) that the defendant, with knowledge, voluntarily joined it.” United States v. Molina, 443 F.3d 824, 828 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). Although presence is a permissible factor to be considered in determining whether a defendant conspired with another, “it is well settled that mere presence will not support a conviction.” United States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir 2002). “Mere presence, guilty knowledge, even sympathetic observation” and close association with a co-conspirator are insufficient, without more, to support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs. United States v. Lyons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 1995). Yet, such factors may raise a permissible inference of participation in a conspiracy, which the jury may consider as a “material and probative factor . . . in reaching its decision.” United States v. Hernandez, 896 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1990). Here, the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to 8 the government, supports a finding that the jury in this case could reasonably conclude that Geter was more than a “sympathetic observer” and, thus, that a conspiracy between Geter and the CI existed. See Lyons, 53 F.3d at 1201. The record indicates that the CI contacted Geter, who eventually asked him to sell heroin at 1943 Northwest 2nd Court. The CI asked Geter if he could sell drugs on 14th Street instead and Geter consented. The CI met Geter and one of his lieutenants, Jerry, at 1971 Northwest 2nd Court (“the 1971 building”). Jerry coordinated the distribution of drugs to the sellers and collected the drug proceeds at the end of each shift. Jerry assigned the CI to work with another seller, Jagne, on 14th Street. The CI set up two controlled buys with undercover officers from the DEA and the City of Miami Police Department. The CI arrived at the 1971 building at the beginning of each shift, where Jerry instructed him to see Jagne, who had already picked up the drugs that were to be sold that night. The CI sold the drugs, which were marked with symbols identifying Geter as the source, to the undercover officers and brought the proceeds back to Jerry. The CI requested additional drugs after the first controlled buy, but Jerry advised that he had to wait for Geter to package the drugs. Geter did not fulfill the CI’s request. Undercover officers observed Geter at the 1971 building during each of the controlled buys. 9 Geter often sat in a car parked in front of the building, and was also seen sitting under the stairwell. The officers also observed Jerry as he collected the drug proceeds and gave them to a person sitting in a car in front of the building. Based on these facts, the jury could conclude that Geter employed the CI and others in a heroin distribution operation, packaged the heroin in specially-marked baggies, provided those drugs to lieutenants, oversaw the distribution of those drugs to various sellers, and ultimately received the proceeds from each sale. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish that an agreement existed between Geter and the CI to possess with the intent to distribute at least five grams of heroin.