Opinion ID: 78333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Emmanuel argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir.1999). A conviction must be upheld unless the jury could not have found the defendant guilty under any reasonable construction of the evidence. Id. The record from the trial demonstrates that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The evidence showed that Emmanuel was a member of the Austin Knowles organization and participated in the organization's drug trafficking. The primary evidence of Emmanuel's participation was his own incriminating conversations, intercepted from both the Bahamian and United States wiretaps. In these conversations, Emmanuel discussed drug payments, plans to ship large amounts of cocaine to Florida, the availability of drug smuggling ships, and security for the smuggling operations. All of this evidence was corroborated by seizures of drugs and drug money. The government also presented testimony from coconspirators, each of whom knew about Emmanuel either through personal dealings with him or because of co-conspirator statements by Austin Knowles. In the face of this evidence, Emmanuel focuses on alleged omissions in the government's case and arguments relating to the credibility of the government's witnesses. But [i]t is not necessary for the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt. See United States v. Garcia, 447 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir.2006). And [t]o the extent that Appellant['s] argument depends upon challenges to the credibility of witnesses, the jury has exclusive province over that determination and the court of appeals may not revisit the question. Chastain, 198 F.3d at 1351. Emmanuel has not demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.