Opinion ID: 187162
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Brodie first argues that his conviction should be reversed for insufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we must accept the jury's guilty verdict if we conclude that `any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Dykes, 406 F.3d 717, 721 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40, 48 (D.C.Cir.2002)). While this articulation imposes an `exceedingly heavy burden,' Brodie's burden is even heavier because he failed to move for a judgment of acquittal and we thus consider his claim only if denial on the waiver ground would constitute a `manifest miscarriage of justice.' United States v. Booker, 436 F.3d 238, 241 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Salamanca, 990 F.2d 629, 637 (D.C.Cir. 1993); United States v. Thompson, 279 F.3d 1043, 1051 (D.C.Cir.2002)). To be guilty of the charged conspiracy, Brodie had to enter into an agreement to commit fraud, knowingly participate in the conspiracy and commit `at least one overt act ... in furtherance of the conspiracy.' United States v. Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d 331, 337 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Mellen, 393 F.3d 175, 180-81 (D.C.Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted)). The elements of the wire fraud offense [a]re that [Brodie] knowingly and willingly entered into a scheme to defraud and that an interstate wire communication was used to further the scheme. Id. Because the record is not devoid of evidence supporting each element of both offensesthe documentary evidence alone demonstrates Brodie's extensive involvement in the schemeno manifest miscarriage of justice results from rejecting Brodie's sufficiency claim. Thompson, 279 F.3d at 1051.