Opinion ID: 667609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 2 All of the defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their conspiracy convictions. 1 The defendants bear a heavy burden in attempting to overturn their convictions on the basis of insufficient evidence. In reviewing the evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences in the government's favor, and we will reverse only if no rational jury could have found the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Scarbrough, 990 F.2d 296, 299 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 121, 126 L.Ed.2d 85 (1993); United States v. Gutierrez, 978 F.2d 1463, 1468 (7th Cir.1992). We will not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses. United States v. Van Wyhe, 965 F.2d 528, 531 (7th Cir.1992). 3 In order to prove the existence of a conspiracy, the government must establish that 1) the defendants agreed to accomplish an illegal objective; 2) the defendants performed at least one overt act in furtherance of the illegal objective; and 3) the conspirators intended to commit the substantive offense. Scarbrough, 990 F.2d at 299. Here, the defendants challenge the district court's finding regarding the first of those elements, arguing that the evidence did not show an agreement among the three or that they acted in concert to achieve a common purpose. Instead, the defendants contend, the evidence revealed that each defendant acted individually in pursuit of his own self-interest, which often conflicted with that of his codefendants. 4 But the evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to support the inference that the defendants acted in concert, pursuant to a mutual agreement. Because conspiracies are secretive by their very nature, the government is not required to present evidence of a formal agreement. Id. Instead, an agreement to conspire may be established by circumstantial evidence, including reasonable inferences drawn from the defendants' conduct and overt acts. Id. The evidence linking the defendant to the conspiracy must be substantial. United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1228 (7th Cir.1990). 5 The government's case against the defendants was based mainly on evidence gathered from two Metro Center residents who were also government informants, Henry Olave and Terry Newsome. 2 With the cooperation of Olave and Newsome, the government was able to tape record numerous conversations that incriminated the defendants. Among those were several that supported the inference that the three were acting together, pursuant to a conspiratorial agreement. For example, during a January 6, 1989 conversation that included Jacobs, Ford, Olave and Sabina Carlson (an undercover Chicago Police Task Force Agent posing as Olave's sister-in-law) Jacobs and Ford argued over who should receive a $200 payment. Jacobs stated, ... what's the matter, we're working together, ain't we? (Govt.Ex. 14 at 10.) During a November 8, 1988 conversation with Olave and Carlson, Gibson said, ... this ain't nobody's business but me, you and Ford. (Govt. Ex. 10 at 8.) And, in a December 15, 1988 conversation, Jacobs told Olave regarding falsifying the records of Olave's whereabouts: 6 Yeah, you just have to know how to do it. See, Gipson's alright, but he, I tell him how to do things, sometime he don't listen, you know ... 7 (Govt.Ex. 13 at 3.) 8 Finally, on January 10, 1989, Jacobs, Olave and Carlson had the following conversation: 9 Henry Olave: ... any way I can be out of Metro for like one or two nights. 10