Opinion ID: 194956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mena Robles

Text: 13 Appellant Mena Robles argues that the evidence fails to show the existence of an agreement between himself and the other conspirators. We disagree. It is true, as Mena Robles argues, that there is no evidence tending to indicate that he played a role in arranging the transaction. Mena Robles also correctly asserts that his actions in the restaurant on May 31, 1990, are consistent with the behavior of an innocent bystander; that is, there is nothing inherently inculpatory about sitting at a particular table, near other people, and accepting a beer when offered. Those facts are not dispositive, however. Even if Mena Robles did not actively participate until the final negotiation, he is not necessarily absolved from being implicated in the conspiracy because the government is not required to prove that he took part in all aspects of the conspiracy. See Cruz, 981 F.2d at 617. As for Mena Robles's innocent bystander argument, we note that jurors can be assumed to know that criminals rarely welcome innocent persons as witnesses to serious crimes and rarely seek to perpetrate felonies before larger-than-necessary audiences. Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 712. In addition,  'there are circumstances where presence itself implies participation--as where a 250-pound bruiser stands silently by during an extortion attempt, or a companion stands by during a robbery, ready to sound a warning or give other aid if required.'  Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 712 (quoting United States v. Martinez, 479 F.2d 824, 829 (1st Cir.1973)). 14 Thus, the jury could have inferred, for example, that Montanez Ortiz's decision to shout to Carlos Kortwright, within earshot of the negotiators, was done with the knowledge that appellants were not innocent bystanders, but instead were participants in the scheme. Based on our reading of the record, a reasonable jury could also conclude that appellants: arrived at the restaurant simultaneously with the other putative conspirators; parked their car near to those of the others; sat at an adjacent table, only a few feet from the main negotiators, despite the fact that the rest of the restaurant was empty; faced toward the negotiators for the entire time they were in the restaurant; first declined, and then accepted, the officers' drink offers, apparently in response to instructions from codefendants Colberg and Casiano; were identified by codefendant Carlos Kortwright as being with the group to protect the money; 4 and were arrested in a car with codefendant Montanez Ortiz. 15 While these factual conclusions are not the only ones the jury could have reached, we find them eminently reasonable. See e.g., United States v. Nueva, 979 F.2d 880, 883 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1615, 123 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993) (prosecution need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, so long as the total evidence permits a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.). Accordingly, we find the evidence sufficient to support Mena Robles's conspiracy conviction.