Opinion ID: 2977275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Robinson argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy.5 “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Martin, 520 F.3d at 660 (quoting United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting in turn Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979))). To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, ‘(1) an agreement to violate drug laws, (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy, and (3) participation in the conspiracy.’” United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 232 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir. 1999)). Drug conspiracies “often assume[] a vertical pattern of distribution, where each successive distributor sells a lower volume to any particular customer. . . . [A]n agreement to supply drugs to a given area can be inferred from the interdependence of the enterprise.” Id. at 233. “In a drug distribution ‘chain’ conspiracy, it is enough to show that each member of the conspiracy realized that he was participating in a joint venture, even if he did not know the identities of every other member, or was not involved in all the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 332-33 (6th Cir. 2005). “‘[E]vidence of repeat purchases provides evidence of more than a mere buyer-seller relationship,’ and the quantity of drugs may also support an inference of 5 Robinson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the threshold quantity of cocaine. No. 07-5474 United States v. Robinson Page 7 conspiracy.” Id. at 333 (quoting United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 373 (6th Cir. 2003)). Also, the “trust involved” in delivering drug quantities on credit “suggests more than a buyer-seller relationship.” United States v. Nesbitt, 90 F.3d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1996). The evidence was sufficient to show that Robinson conspired with Juan Valentin and others to distribute cocaine. Valentin testified that he and Robinson shared a “business relationship” and that they worked together to sell cocaine. Robinson purchased drugs from Valentin once or twice a week, sometimes on credit, over a period of several years. On at least one occasion, Robinson accompanied Valentin to a source city to pick up “a couple kilos” of cocaine. Robinson helped collect money other buyers owed Valentin. He warned Valentin about police activity. He conferred with Valentin about how to recover drug proceeds from an impounded car. Robinson introduced Troy Allison to Valentin, and Allison became one of Valentin’s “good customer[s].” From this evidence a rational trier of fact could find that there was an agreement to violate drug laws, that Robinson knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy, and that Robinson participated in the conspiracy.