Opinion ID: 423956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 61 Defendants Rhone, Mosby, and Barnett all urge that the evidence presented in this case was not sufficient to support their convictions. Barnett, in particular, argues that this conviction must be reversed because it is based on inconsistent testimony, given by admitted coconspirators, perjurers, and informants. Br. for Appellant Barnett at iv. 62 Our task is not to weigh the evidence or to assess the credibility of the witnesses. The verdict of the jury must be sustained if there was substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Frans, 697 F.2d 188, 190 (7th Cir.1983). 63 We have examined the record in this case, and find that each of the defendants stands convicted on the basis of substantial evidence. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the jury verdict and the judgment entered thereon.