Opinion ID: 721979
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency Of The Evidence Against Looney

Text: 11 Looney contends first that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and therefore that it should be vacated. On appeal he challenges the trial testimony of Johnson, Bounds, and White as vague, speculative, and ambiguous. [Blue Br. p. 16] Looney does not argue that a conspiracy did not exist. Rather, he contends he cannot be linked to the crack. 12 In considering such an argument we view the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the government in determining whether any rational trier-of-fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129, 131 (7th Cir.1995). To prove Looney guilty the government need to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a crack cocaine conspiracy existed from June to November 1993; (2) Looney knew of the conspiratorial agreement; and (3) Looney intended to join the conspiracy. United States v. Theodosopolous, 48 F.3d 1438, 1449-50 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Ghanayem v. United States, 116 S.Ct. (1995). 13 The evidence at trial does not support Looney's assertion that he has no connection to the crack cocaine. Bounds testified she heard Johnson ask Looney to send the drugs and Looney admitted to Bounds that he sent the package containing crack cocaine to Decatur. White testified he sold crack in Decatur which was supplied by Looney. Johnson testified she discussed selling crack with White and Looney. Johnson also testified that White gave her money from the sale of crack which she then gave to Looney. Cassie Haire testified she gave money from crack sales to Looney. The telephone calls between Looney and the co-conspirators in Decatur surrounding the delivery of the October 1993 package and August 1993 postal money orders corroborate the co-conspirators' testimony that Looney requested telephonic confirmation of delivery of the packages of crack. From this evidence the jury could have easily concluded that Looney was the hub of the whole conspiracy. 14 Because, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, sufficient evidence was presented for a rational jury to conclude that Looney knew of (indeed participated in) the Decatur crack cocaine conspiracy, we will not vacate his conviction on this ground.