Opinion ID: 490911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims of Individual Defendants: Sufficiency of the Evidence.

Text: 31 Each defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We agree that the government introduced insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of defendant Federico Manon. However, sufficient evidence was adduced to support the convictions of Gustavo Hernandez, Martin Reyes, Antonio Young, and Charles Molina. 32
33 The evidence as to defendant Federico Manon was insufficient. In the main, the government's evidence consisted of the fact that Manon had lent Juan George $200 on February 14, 1985. At best, the government established only that Manon did not inquire as to the reason George requested the money; the government makes no plausible argument, and introduced no evidence at trial, that Manon actually knew that George intended to use the money to purchase cocaine. 34 The conversation wherein Manon agreed to lend George the $200 reveals no basis to infer knowledge on Manon's part that the money was to be used for cocaine: 35 JUAN [GEORGE]: I need a few dollars ... a few hundred dollars. 36 FEDERICO [MANON]: How much? 37 JUAN: Two hundred. 38 FEDERICO: Okay, I'll go to the bank and get it. 39 JUAN: You would[?]. 40 FEDERICO: Hey, that's what friends are for. 41    42    43 JUAN: But I need it tomorrow    because I have to get something from New York. 44 FEDERICO: You don't have to explain it. 45 JUAN: No, but ... 46 FEDERICO: You don't have to. 47 Govt. Ex. 53B. This conversation was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manon knew that George intended to purchase cocaine with the loan; indeed, the only reasonable conclusion is that he didn't feel a need for an explanation, and whatever the purpose was willing to extend the loan on the basis of his friendship with George. 48 The only evidence other than the loan itself pointed to by the government as supporting Manon's conviction goes only to a possible inference that Manon had some knowledge that George was involved in a conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Even if such an inference could reasonably be drawn from the evidence adduced, mere knowledge of a conspiracy does not render the individual with such knowledge a co-conspirator. Having knowledge that an individual is involved in a drug conspiracy does not mean that lending the individual money--at least when the sum involved is not so great as to raise an inference that the loan must be or very likely is to be used in the conspiracy--involves the lender in the conspiracy. Since the $200 loan made by Manon to George, even when combined with the possible inference that Manon was aware that George was involved in a narcotics conspiracy, was insufficient to support the conclusion that Manon was a co-conspirator, his conviction cannot stand. 49 2. Gustavo Hernandez, Martin Reyes, Antonio Young, and Charles Molina. 50 The evidence that the remaining four defendants were involved in a conspiracy with Juan George to distribute cocaine is far more compelling, and readily sufficient to sustain their convictions. 51 As to defendant Gustavo Hernandez, the government's evidence, consisting mainly of the testimony of conspirator Ismael Melendez, was that Hernandez not only purchased cocaine for his own personal use, but also supplied it to someone at an Albany pub, and, more importantly, also delivered cocaine to Juan George, who then paid Ismael Melendez for the cocaine. Such involvement in both the distribution and delivery of the cocaine is sufficient to permit the inference that Hernandez was both aware of the broad conspiracy, and a participant in its functioning. United States v. Torres, 503 F.2d 1120, 1123-24 (2d Cir.1974). 52 There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant Antonio Young participated in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. While it is true that a mere purchaser of cocaine for personal use is not a co-conspirator in his suppliers' distribution conspiracy, cf. United States v. Swiderski, 548 F.2d 445, 451 (2d Cir.1977) ([One] who delivers drugs to [another] is liable as a distributor    while [one] who receives the drug for personal use[] is subject to a charge of simple possession    unless it is proven    that the user intends further to distribute the substance.), there was evidence that Young did take acts to further distribute the cocaine he purchased from George, and moreover participated in George's operation, if only to a limited extent. In one instance, Young purchased cocaine to supply to guests he was expecting, and at another point he relayed the complaint of another of George's customers that George was cutting, or diluting, the cocaine. These acts may be analogized to the functions in a legitimate business of a sales or customer service agent giving free samples and relaying customer criticisms, and the jury could reasonably conclude that they manifested Young's participation in the George narcotics enterprise. 53 The evidence also was sufficient to support the convictions of Molina and Reyes. On at least one occasion, Molina purchased cocaine from George for the purpose of distributing it to his co-workers to keep them awake. In addition, the government introduced as evidence the transcript of a conversation between Molina and Juan George in which they discussed, using coded terminology, the price and availability of cocaine. Based on this explicit distributive conduct, and the interpretation of the conversation offered by an Albany police officer, the jury could reasonably conclude that Molina was actively involved in George's conspiracy. 54 The evidence is most convincing as to defendant Reyes. Reyes not only purchased cocaine from Juan George, but also offered to introduce George to Reyes' brother-in-law as a potential new supplier of cocaine. Moreover, in contrast to Manon, who merely lent George money without knowing the purpose to which he would apply it, Reyes specifically offered George money if George required it for the purchase of cocaine. This activity was sufficient to support the conclusion that Reyes was a member of the George conspiracy. 55 We therefore conclude that as to defendants Gustavo Hernandez, Martin Reyes, Antonio Young, and Charles Molina, there was sufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support their convictions.