Opinion ID: 1034078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We took him up on it, my wife did.

Text: Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 18 5336/ 5337/ 5366 ... Q. So there were other positions to be filled out besides Wanda’s? A. Uh-huh. ... Q. And did you-all make suggested names for Charles Wayne Jones to put on—for the Democrat list [of election officers]? A. Yes, we did. Q. Do you recall who it was you-all put on the list? A. We put Earl Pennington, I think was one, and Dobber [Weaver], Charles Weaver’s wife, Minnie Weaver. ... Q. Did you come up with those names yourself or did you seek input from others to suggest those names to Wayne Jones? A. I came up with them after talking with Cletus and talking with Darnell and Bart [Morris] and other people involved. ... Q. Did you ever—did you have any meetings with Doug Adams about this proposal? A. Yes. ... Q. Okay. Did he make any specific requests of Wanda through you? A. He wanted Wanda to be for Kevin Johnson. Q. And what office was he seeking? A. Sheriff. R. 840 (02/11/2010 Trial Tr. at 80–85) (Page ID #5646–51). Wanda White’s testimony confirmed the involvement of Maricle, Jones, Stivers, Bowling, and Thompson in the 2006 election. R. 931 (02/19/2010 Trial Tr. at 33–35) (Page ID #12113–15). To this end, Stivers, Jones, and Thompson taught Wanda White how to steal votes on the new voting machines to be utilized in the 2006 election. Id. at Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 19 5336/ 5337/ 5366 36–37 (Page ID #12116–17). If the White and Adams factions were as divided as defendants contend on appeal, it seems odd that Adams supporters would instruct a White supporter on how to steal votes. The overlapping of participants from each faction in all three election cycles supports the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy. In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say that it reasonably can be construed as supporting only a finding of multiple conspiracies. Although there was antagonism among members of the conspiracy, the evidence supported the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy because defendants agreed to a common goal, the nature of vote buying does not allow for a clean division of sides, and there was evidence to support the overlapping of participants from both factions in each election cycle. Therefore, we conclude that there was no variance.13