Opinion ID: 579523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 20 Although Radeker requires that we remand for a new trial, we must nonetheless address Perez's argument that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. If Perez is correct, retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles. See United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483, 491-92 (10th Cir.1979). We must therefore determine whether the evidence, considered most favorably to the government, is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 492. A. Conspiracy to Distribute 21 The essence of a drug distribution conspiracy conviction is an agreement between two or more persons to traffic in controlled substances. United States v. Horn, 946 F.2d 738, 740 (10th Cir.1991). To prove such a conviction, the government must establish that  '(1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of it.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1471 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 882, 116 L.Ed.2d 786 (1992)). The indictment here charged a conspiracy involving Perez, Gonzales, Pederson, and other persons unknown. Perez contends that the evidence was insufficient because it did not establish a conspiratorial link between Gonzales and Pederson. We disagree. 22 A defendant must have a general awareness of other alleged coconspirators, but is not required to be personally acquainted with all coconspirators or know all of the details of the venture. Id. at 741. Although the conduct of the alleged co-conspirators must be interdependent in some way, id. at 740, interdependence is present if the conduct of the co-conspirators facilitated the endeavors of other alleged coconspirators or facilitated the venture as a whole, id. at 740-41. 23 As set out in Part I, supra, the evidence at trial, viewed most favorably to the government, tended to show that Pederson knew Perez was seeking cocaine to buy for other customers, and that Pederson facilitated that venture by introducing Perez to a source of cocaine, Alfonso. Gonzales likewise facilitated the venture by participating in the actual transaction and providing the cash to purchase the drug. Although Pederson may not have known that Gonzales was one of Perez's customers who was to benefit from this transaction, such knowledge is not essential. Because both Gonzales and Pederson took action which facilitated the venture as a whole, their conduct was sufficiently interdependent to support Perez's conviction on the conspiracy charged in the indictment. B. Possession with Intent to Distribute 24 Perez also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the substantive possession count. He contends the government failed to establish that one of the ten kilos was cocaine, or to establish which one of the ten kilos he actually purchased. Perez thus argues that because he could have bought the kilo which allegedly had not been shown to contain cocaine, the government had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reviewed the testimony of the government's witness, who identified the ten kilos used in this transaction as cocaine. See rec., vol. IV, at 3-61. The argument is therefore without merit.