Opinion ID: 3028772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: When a district court denies a Rule 29 motion after conviction, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is plenary. See United States v. Coleman, 811 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Our standard of review . . . is the same as that applied by the trial court.”). However, the “burden on a defendant who raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is extremely high.” United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 770 (3d Cir. 2000). We “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d 200, 8 204 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this standard to the record before us, we reject appellant’s contention that the District Court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion. In support of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant recites that the government’s case lacked “any evidence as to David’s actual possession of the firearm.” (Appellant’s Br. at 14.) His argument in support of this point, however, does not concern a lack of evidence; rather, he raises a challenge to the credibility of the evidence by pointing to a “litany of inconsistencies” in the officers’ testimony and to his own presentation of evidence further undermining the government’s witnesses. These are classic issues of witness credibility which are strictly within the province of the jury. The jury, or judge sitting as finder of fact, has authority to credit all, none, or any part of the evidence properly before it. See, e.g., United States v. Boone, 279 F.3d 163, 189 (3d Cir. 2002). The members of the jury were entitled to credit the central facts of the officers’ testimony concerning knowing possession, even if they discredited the other, inconsistent testimony. And they were entitled to completely discredit the defense’s evidence. Resolving these credibility issues in favor of the government, as we must, we are satisfied that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have found that David knowingly possessed the Lorcin pistol. Both officers identified appellant as the man they saw standing on a street corner on October 22, 2003; they both stated that they had a clear look at his face before he ran, as well as after he was apprehended. Officer Norman testified that, while chasing appellant, he lost sight of him for less than half a 9 minute, and that, when he again caught sight of appellant and detained him, he recognized him as the man who had run from the street corner. Officer Mateo stated that when he lifted the jacket which he had just seen David discard, the Lorcin pistol fell out of the right sleeve. And the gun and the 3XL jacket were placed in evidence. Based on this evidence, the jury reasonably could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that David possessed the gun in the sleeve of his jacket and that he knew the gun was there. The other required findings were stipulated to or conceded by the defense. Therefore, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to support the verdict, the District Court did not err in denying David’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.