Opinion ID: 174353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Russell and Northington challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Our review of a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence is plenary, and we apply the same standard as the district court. United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196, 206 (3d Cir. 2009). We examine the totality of the circumstances, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. “We must uphold the jury’s verdict if there is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “The burden on a defendant who raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is extremely high.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Russell argues that the Government’s evidence proved only that he was an independent drug dealer, not that he engaged in a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute drugs. He further challenges the drug quantities proven by the Government. We reject his arguments, as did the District Court at the close of the Government’s case and on Russell’s post-trial motion. 5 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 6 Conspiracy requires “(1) a unity of purpose between the alleged conspirators; (2) an intent to achieve a common goal; and (3) an agreement to work together toward that goal.” United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144, 149 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A “simple buyer-seller relationship, without any prior or contemporaneous understanding beyond the sales agreement itself, is insufficient to establish that the buyer was a member of the seller’s conspiracy.” United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). However, “even an occasional supplier (and by implication an occasional buyer for redistribution) can be shown to be a member of the conspiracy by evidence, direct or inferential, of knowledge that she or he was part of a larger operation.” Id. at 198 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the evidence presented at trial sufficiently demonstrated Russell’s participation in the conspiracy—specifically, as a mid-level distributor for the SavageThomas drug organization. Russell was recorded on the wiretap negotiating a drug deal with Thomas on behalf of another charged co-conspirator, Demetrius Williams. Russell solicited Thomas’s help in resolving a territorial dispute between himself and yet another charged co-conspirator, Malik Jones, after Jones “scared [his] worker off.” Russell asked Thomas to order Jones to “leave [his worker] alone” because the “coke won’t sell itself.” This was persuasive evidence that Russell was involved in the drug conspiracy. See id. at 208 n.11 (“An internal dispute among members of a conspiracy can itself be compelling evidence that the conspiracy is ongoing and that the rivals are members of it.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 The Government intercepted many other calls between Russell and Thomas that showed their dealings were “repeated” and “familiar,” indicating that he “probably comprehend[ed] fully the nature of the group with whom he is dealing” and “ha[d] full knowledge of, if not a stake in, a conspiracy.” Id. at 199. Indeed, the evidence showed that Thomas and Russell would meet at the home of Savage, the ringleader. Moreover, Thomas often fronted the drugs to Russell, and, as we have recognized, a “credit relationship may well reflect the kind of trust” indicating that the buyer was part of the conspiracy. Id. at 200. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Government proved the elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Russell also argues that the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. However, the various wiretapped calls provided sufficient proof of this amount. In addition, Russell was liable for all reasonably foreseeable criminal offenses committed by his co-conspirators during the course of, and in furtherance of, the drug conspiracy. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
Northington argues the evidence against him was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy because (1) he was incarcerated throughout much of the conspiracy’s existence, (2) the Government improperly relied on the testimony of two cooperating witnesses, and (3) there was no proof he shared in the proceeds of the conspiracy. We do 8 not find his arguments persuasive.6 It is true that Northington was in prison during much of the conspiracy; thus he was not intercepted on the wiretaps. However, the Government presented much evidence to support the charges against him. Two witnesses at trial testified that Northington sold drugs for the Savage organization. Eugene Coleman testified that, when Northington was released from prison, he began selling crack for Savage again, and was present when Savage converted cocaine into crack. (Gov’t Supp’l App. 290, 293.) According to Coleman, Northington had “his own block that he sold drugs on,” located at 9th and Pike Streets. (Id. 291.) Stanley Smith also testified that Northington sold cocaine on Franklin and Pike Streets. (Id. 390.) Northington argues that “[t]he problem with [Coleman’s and Smith’s] testimony . . . is that it is completely uncorroborated.” (Northington Br. 22.) However, we have held that “uncorroborated accomplice testimony may constitutionally provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 344 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In any event, the testimony of Coleman and Smith is corroborated by other evidence. FBI agents observed Northington at Savage’s home and at one of the conspiracy’s cocaine pressing houses in early 2003. In February 2003, Northington was arrested in front of Savage’s home for a parole violation. That same month, police searched 6 Although Northington does not argue otherwise, his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon was also supported by sufficient evidence. 9 Northington’s apartment and found extensive evidence of drug trafficking. (Gov’t Supp’l App. 369–72, 378.) In April 2003, when police conducted a search of Savage’s home, Northington was sleeping in the basement, and he gave a false name to the police. While carrying out this search warrant, agents found several letters written by Northington while he was in prison, telling Savage to “control the block” by going through his brother—“[t]hat way you and me . . . both can make some money off the Block . . . . [T]hat’s my Block that I took and my product that I left my Bro[ther] with . . . ” (Id. 670.) Northington further wrote that, once he returned home, he and Savage could “handle [their] business together.” (Id. 669.) The testimony of Coleman and Stanley, the surveillance evidence, the drug trafficking evidence in Northington’s apartment, and Northington’s letters to Savage provided more than sufficient evidence to support Northington’s conspiracy conviction.