Opinion ID: 200347
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Powers and Mozynski

Text: Carey argues that the government's evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict against him for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and for aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine. In considering Carey's sufficiency claims, we must view the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the government and consider whether a rational fact finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 589 (1st Cir. 1994) (internal quotations -6- omitted). We review the totality of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1073 (1st Cir. 1997). All issues of credibility must be resolved in favor of the verdict. United States v. Nueva, 979 F.2d. 880, 883 (1st Cir. 1992). To prove conspiracy in a criminal case, the government must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement existed to commit the underlying substantive offense, that the defendant knew of the agreement, and that he opted to join the conspiracy with the intention that the substantive offense be committed. See United States v. Barnes, 244 F.3d 172, 175 (1st Cir. 2001). To convict Carey of the conspiracy charge, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carey intended to agree and intended that crack cocaine be possessed and distributed. See United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 613, 616 (1st Cir. 1992). The agreement may be express or tacit and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1173 (1st Cir. 1993). Carey argues that there was no reliable evidence showing any agreement on his part to enter into a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. Specifically, he contends that the testimony of Powers and Mozynski was inherently unreliable, and failed to establish his participation in the conspiracy. We disagree. -7- This circuit has held that [u]ncorroborated testimony of a cooperating accomplice may sustain a conviction so long as that testimony is not facially incredible. United States v. TorresGalindo, 206 F.3d 136, 139-40 (1st Cir. 2000). The testimony of Powers and Mozynski was not only corroborated and credible, but also established Carey's participation in the conspiracy. Each witness' testimony about Carey's involvement in the drug deals was corroborated by the fact that the first deal took place at Carey's house; the fact that crack cocaine and cash were found in Carey's home at the time of his arrest; and the fact that Carey made incriminating statements which were recorded throughout the investigation. In addition, while Powers and Mozynski had questionable backgrounds that called their credibility into question, those issues were aired before the jury throughout the trial. The jury also was instructed that it was to assess the credibility of the witnesses in reaching a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Powers' and Mozynski's testimony further demonstrated Carey's participation in the conspiracy. Their testimony showed that Carey initiated the drug relationship between Mozynski and the other members of the conspiracy. Carey agreed to sell Mozynski crack cocaine that he would be getting from Henderson prior to being cut out of the deal. Powers' testimony further demonstrated that Carey distributed crack cocaine from his house throughout the -8- period of the conspiracy, and that he made more than one hundred crack cocaine purchases from Henderson. Mozynski additionally testified that he had purchased crack cocaine from Carey the week before the first charged sale. Given the sufficiency of Powers' and Mozynski's testimony, a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, Carey asserts that Powers' and Mozynski's testimony did not support a conviction for aiding and abetting in the distribution of crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2. We observe, however, that the identical circumstantial and credibility assessments which permitted the jury to determine that Carey conspired with Henderson to possess crack cocaine for distribution suffice as well to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Carey consciously sought to distribute the crack cocaine. See United States v. Arias, 238 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001).