Opinion ID: 1463584
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of a Single Narcotics Conspiracy

Text: Payne's contention that the evidence was insufficient to show his participation in the single drug distribution conspiracy alleged in the indictment i.e., a conspiracy between 1985 and January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusivefares no better. [A] single conspiracy is not transformed into multiple conspiracies merely by virtue of the fact that it may involve two or more phases or spheres of operation, so long as there is sufficient proof of mutual dependence and assistance. United States v. Geibel, 369 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 999, 125 S.Ct. 619, 160 L.Ed.2d 457 (2004). Changes in membership[ and/or] differences in time periods . . . do not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy. United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d at 72. In the context of narcotics operations . . . we have held that even where there are multiple groups within an alleged conspiracy, a single conspiracy exists where the groups share a common goal and depend upon and assist each other, and we can reasonably infer that each actor was aware of his part in a larger organization where others performed similar roles. United States v. Berger, 224 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The matter of whether there existed a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment, or instead multiple conspiracies that did not include the conspiracy alleged, is a question of fact for a properly instructed jury. United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d at 125 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if multiple conspiracies are found, the jury should convict the defendant if it finds that one of the proven conspiracies was the one alleged in the indictment and that the defendant was a member of it. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 454 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Lam Lek Chong, 544 F.2d 58, 68 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1101, 97 S.Ct. 1124, 51 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977); United States v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1107 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832 (1975). We will affirm the jury's verdict unless, on the evidence presented, no rational factfinder could have found that the conspiracy alleged in the indictment existed. The district court here properly instructed the jury that it could not find Payne guilty on count ten unless it found that the government had proven the existence of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment and Payne's membership in that conspiracy; and we see no basis on which to overturn the jury's verdict. Payne's contentions (a) that [t]here was not one narcotic[s] conspiracy spanning eighteen years but a host of conspiracies, actually a variety of drug dealers, friendly, but running separate business[es] (Payne brief on appeal at 55), and (b) that his association with the family ended in 1996 when he was fired as Thomas's lieutenant ( see id. at 56; see also id. at 45 (arguing that Payne was thrown out of the group)) are belied by the evidence discussed in Parts I.A. and II.B.1. above. The jury was entitled to find that the alleged conspiracy existed in light of the evidence that Thomas and Hatcher became members of the drug distribution family in the mid-1980s; that, by agreement, family members would [s]ell drugs together (Tr. 1172), coordinating and not competing with each other ( see, e.g., id. at 743, 708-09), and supporting each other with money, weapons, and retaliatory actions when needed; that Thomas sold drugs throughout the 1985-2002 period; that although Hatcher spent several years in prison in the 1990s, he remained a member of the drug distribution family and was supported monetarily while incarcerated; that when Hunter was released from prison in 1996, Payne and Thomas helped him financially ( see id. at 1326); that when Hatcher was released from prison in 1998, Payne and Hunter helped him financially ( see id. at 709-10); and that Hatcher, upon his release from prison, could have, as a family member, sold drugs on the same block as Thomas, but he declined because that would have been a conflict of interest as Hatcher and Thomas were family, period ( id. at 708-09). Hatcher said, We don't do business like that. Why would we compete against ourselves? ( Id. at 709.) The record also included evidence that Hunter was a member of the conspiracy throughout the period alleged in the indictment, working first with Hatcher and later with Thomas. Although in and out of jail with considerable frequency, he was supported during periods of incarceration by Thomas and/or Hatcher. On at least one occasion while Hunter was incarcerated, he was consulted by Hatcher with respect to the appropriateness of killing a person who was acting in a manner detrimental to the interests of the family. ( See id. at 634-37.) The evidence discussed in Parts I.A. and II.B.l. above showed that Payne joined the ongoing conspiracy in 1995. He served as a lieutenant for Thomas in the procurement, packaging, delivery, and protection of crack cocaine in 1995-1996; as a killer and robber at the behest of Thomas in 1997 and 2000; as a robbery partner of Hunter in 1998; as a robbery partner of Hatcher after Hatcher was released from prison in 1998 and through at least January 2000; as a supplier of drugs to Hatcher in and after 2000; and, by agreement with Thomas and Hatcher, as a fellow seller of crack at Georgia/Hegeman beginning in 2000. In sum, the evidence was ample to permit the jury to find that there was, as alleged in the indictment, a single ongoing narcotics conspiracy of which Hatcher, Thomas, and Hunter were core members, and that Payne was a member of that conspiracy, joining in 1995 and continuing to participate in it at least until Thomas and Hatcher were arrested in connection with this case in 2002.