Opinion ID: 1213391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: There is Sufficient Evidence Supporting a Guilty Verdict as to Conspiracy.

Text: To establish a drug conspiracy, the government must prove (1) an agreement to accomplish an illegal objective; and (2) the intent to commit the underlying offense. United States v. Iriarte-Ortega, 113 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted), amended by 127 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir.1997). Williams argues that the evidence showed only his mere presence by his association with three co-conspirators and participation in three telephone calls, but not any agreement to any unlawful objects of the conspiracy. Williams also argues that evidence that he received PCP from Reed only shows that he was a purchaser of drugs, which does not render him a member of a conspiracy to distribute drugs. See United States v. Mancari, 875 F.2d 103, 105 (7th Cir.1989) (A sale for the buyer's personal consumption, as distinct from a sale for resale, does not a conspiracy make.). Relevant to Williams argument, we have previously stated: In a mere presence ... case, the question is whether there is enough evidence to tie the defendant to the criminal activities.... [O]nce a conspiracy is established[,] only a slight connection to the conspiracy is necessary to support a conviction... The term slight connection means that a defendant need not have known all the conspirators, participated in the conspiracy from its beginning, participated in all its enterprises, or known all its details. A connection to the conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Herrera-Gonzalez, 263 F.3d at 1095. Innocent association, even if it is knowing, does not amount to a `slight connection.' Id. Because most conspiracies are clandestine in nature, the prosecution is seldom able to present direct evidence of the agreement. Iriarte-Ortega, 113 F.3d at 1024 (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4(d) 71 (1986)). Thus, a jury may infer the existence of an agreement from circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant's conduct. Id. Coordination between conspirators is strong circumstantial proof of agreement.... Id. Our review of the record shows sufficient evidence that Williams was engaged in a conspiracy to distribute PCP. For example, Stinson testified that Williams was involved in various conversations about PCP sales, including an intercepted call where Williams states that he has out-of-state customers ready to buy PCP when Reed had completed manufacturing it. Stinson also testified that he and Reed delivered PCP to Williams for distribution. Stinson also recalled that Reed gave Williams a gallon of PCP. Detective Labbe also testified about an intercepted conversation between Williams and Reed discussing Reed's plans to continue manufacturing PCP following a lab seizure, in which Williams counseled Reed to stay away from the Los Angeles docks to avoid law enforcement. The evidence, adduced at trial and recounted during the hearing on the Rule 29 motion, is sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and clearly supports the verdict on the conspiracy charge.