Opinion ID: 1034078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Adams contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that he was “‘associated with’” the alleged enterprise (the Board) or that he “‘reached an agreement or came to an understanding to conduct or participate in the affairs of [the] enterprise, directly or indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activity.’” Adams Br. at 45 (quoting R. 826 (Jury Instructions at 16) (Page ID #5022)). We disagree. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing 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.” United States v. Sliwo, 620 F.3d 630, 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Although circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction, there are times that it amounts to only a reasonable speculation and not to sufficient evidence.” Newman v. Metrish, 543 F.3d 793, 796 (6th Cir. 2008). The district court instructed the jury that to find that Adams was “associated with” the charged enterprise: [Adams] must be involved with the enterprise in a way that is related to its affairs, although the person need not have a stake in the goals of the enterprise and may even act in a way that subverts those goals. A person Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 62 5336/ 5337/ 5366 may be associated with an enterprise without being so throughout its existence. R. 826 (Jury Instructions at 20) (Page ID #5026). On appeal, Adams does not challenge these instructions; instead, he argues that he was not associated with the Board of Elections because (1) he was not a member of the Board, (2) he could not have controlled the Board in 2002 (given that White’s candidates held the majority then), and (3) the government did not present any evidence that Adams attempted to use Thompson’s vote on the Board (the candidate he supported) after Thompson became County Clerk (replacing Jennings White as the head of the Board). We reject these arguments. First, the government did not need to show that Adams was a member of the Board or that he exercised some direct control over it; instead, the government was required to prove that Adams was involved with the Board’s affairs. Second, the evidence was sufficient to show that Adams was instrumental in the vote-buying scheme that led to Thompson’s election as County Clerk in 2002 (and therefore Thompson’s becoming head of the Board) and that Adams was involved with the Board’s affairs in subsequent elections. An example from each election cycle shows Adams’s involvement in the Board’s affairs. In 2002, Adams attended the vote-buying meeting at Paul Bishop’s house, where money was laid on the table to elect Thompson as County Clerk and therefore head of the Board. R. 850 (03/02/2010 Trial Tr. at 90) (Page ID #6635). In 2004, Adams induced a candidate to pay $1,000 into the vote-buying pool. R. 849 (03/01/2010 Trial Tr. at 16–17) (Page ID #6424–25). The jury could have inferred that Adams asked for money knowing that the Board—headed by Thompson—would sign off on the results. In 2006, Adams requested that Wanda White, as an election judge, support Kevin Johnson for Sheriff. R. 840 (02/11/2010 Trial Tr. at 80–85) (Page ID #5646–51). A rational jury could infer from this evidence that Adams agreed to participate in the affairs of the enterprise throughout the existence of the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict Adams. Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 63 5336/ 5337/ 5366 Maricle, Jones, W. Morris, D. Morris, and Bowling attempt to adopt Adams’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(i). “[T]ypically, an argument that a particular defendant did not join an alleged conspiracy is fact-specific and not readily transferable to a co-defendant.” United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding an exception because the argument was readily transferable). Defendants have not pointed to a reason to deviate from this rule in the case at hand. This is a fact-intensive issue and the evidence presented by the government regarding each defendant’s involvement with the conspiracy was not uniform. Maricle, Jones, W. Morris, D. Morris, and Bowling have not offered individual analyses on why the evidence was not sufficient to convict each of them. Therefore, we deny their requests to adopt Adams’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.