Opinion ID: 3212672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Brandishing

Text: On appeal, Ridley contends first that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we ask “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prose‐ cution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also United States v. John‐ son, 592 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2010) (in reviewing sufficiency challenge, “we view all evidence and draw all reasonable in‐ ferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution”). No. 15‐1309 5 The jury heard conflicting testimony about whether Rid‐ ley carried and displayed a firearm during the bank robbery. As noted, teller Livesay testified that both robbers carried fire‐ arms where she could see them. A bank customer, Kimberly Connelly, described the robbers and also testified that each carried a firearm, one of which appeared to be a heavy, black pistol. Ridley’s partner Johnson, however, testified that Ridley had not possessed or brandished a firearm during the rob‐ bery. Ridley argues that Johnson’s “unequivocal” testimony that Ridley did not have a firearm undermines the conviction for possession and brandishing. Because the government did not challenge Johnson’s truthfulness as a witness and used some of his statements to its advantage, Ridley argues, the govern‐ ment implicitly endorsed all of Johnson’s testimony and is stuck with his assertion that Ridley did not carry a gun. Rid‐ ley contends that the conflicting testimony as to whether he carried and brandished a firearm must therefore be resolved entirely in Johnson’s and thus Ridley’s favor. We disagree. The government is not necessarily stuck, as a matter of law, with every detail of a cooperating witness’s tes‐ timony. Under the general standard of Jackson v. Virginia, the jury could reasonably decide to credit Livesay’s and Con‐ nelly’s testimony that both robbers carried and displayed fire‐ arms. Their testimony on that point is legally sufficient to con‐ vict Ridley on the brandishing charge. Where plausible (i.e., not impossible) witness testimony conflicts, it is the jury’s role to resolve those conflicts. E.g., United States v. Hodges, 315 F.3d 794, 799 (7th Cir. 2003), citing United States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937, 942 (7th Cir. 1998). The jury had sufficient grounds to credit the testimony of the teller and customer over the word 6 No. 15‐1309 of Ridley’s partner in crime and to find that Ridley actually possessed and brandished a firearm during the robbery.