Opinion ID: 3003423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence (Both Marcus

Text: and Alvarez) Marcus and Alvarez face a “nearly insurmountable hurdle” in this challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions. United States v. Moore, 572 F.3d 334, 337 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). To reverse, we must be convinced that even “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. We will not “weigh the evidence or second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations.” United States v. Stevens, 453 F.3d 963, 965 (7th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). Nor will we “overturn a conviction because we would have voted to acquit.” Id. Rather, “we will overturn a conviction based on insufficient evidence only if the record is devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Farris, 532 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 967 (2008). The jury convicted Marcus and Alvarez of conspiring to rob a drug stash house and sell their loot. “Conspiracy is agreement to violate some other law.” United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346, 349 (7th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Though it might seem odd, the fact that the stash house, the drugs—indeed the whole plot—was fake Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 11 is irrelevant. That the crime agreed upon was in fact impossible to commit is no defense to the crime of conspiracy. United States v. Shively, 715 F.2d 260, 266 (7th Cir. 1983). The crime of conspiracy is the agreement itself.† See United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 11 (1994). † Proof of an overt act is not required for drug conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. § 846. See United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 11 (1994). As for Hobbs Act conspiracies, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, we note that some of our decisions list an overt act as an element, without discussion of the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Stodola, 953 F.2d 266, 272 (7th Cir. 1992) (“To prove conspiracy to commit extortion, the government was only required to prove that ‘there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, that the defendant was a party to the agreement, and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the agreement by one of the coconspirators.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 869 (7th Cir. 1985))). A number of other circuits, however, have expressly held that a Hobbs Act conspiracy does not require proof of an overt act. See, e.g., United States v. Palmer, 203 F.3d 55, 63 (1st Cir. 2000); United States v. Pistone, 177 F.3d 957, 959-60 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Clemente, 22 F.3d 477, 480 (2d Cir. 1994). In this case, the jury instructions did not include an overt act requirement for the Hobbs Act conspiracy count. The defendants do not appeal on those grounds, though. And indeed, at oral argument, appellants’ counsel conceded that, in her view, there is no difference between the proof required for drug conspiracy and that required for a Hobbs Act conspiracy. Therefore, we will not consider whether proof of an overt act was required in this case. 12 Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 The law has long punished the agreement to commit a crime as its own offense. See id. at 16 (citing Regina v. Bass, (1705) 88 Eng. Rep. 881, 882 (K.B.)); Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 593 (1961). This is so because such agreements are dangerous in and of themselves. A collective criminal agreement “increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained,” “decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality,” and “makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish.” Callanan, 364 U.S. at 593. Moreover, conspiracies often breed other crimes to further the ultimate criminal objective, like acquiring firearms or stealing getaway cars, and can even spawn “the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed,” id. at 594. So in this case, the government must prove just that Marcus and Alvarez agreed to rob the stash house and sell the drugs, and that they “knowingly and intentionally join[ed] the agreement.” United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820, 835 (7th Cir. 2008). Alone, idle chitchat or mere boasting about one’s criminal past is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. Specifically, proof of a drug conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 846 requires “substantial evidence that the defendant knew of the illegal objective of the conspiracy and agreed to participate.” United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911, 918-19 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Yet, “[t]he agreement need not be formal, and the government may establish that agreement, as it may other elements of the charge, through circumstantial Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 13 evidence.” United States v. Gilmer, 534 F.3d 696, 701 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Turner, 93 F.3d 276, 282 (7th Cir. 1996). For instance, “[a] conspiracy may be shown by evidence which shows that the co-conspirators embraced the criminal objective of the conspiracy, that the conspiracy continued towards its common goal, and that there were co-operative relationships.” Gilmer, 534 F.3d at 703. Moreover, an agreement must exist among cocon- spirators, that is, those who actually intend to carry out the agreed-upon criminal plan. United States v. Mahkimetas, 991 F.2d 379, 383 (7th Cir. 1993). A defendant is not liable for conspiring solely with an undercover government agent or a government informant. Id. Marcus and Alvarez challenge their conspiracy convictions in two ways. First, they contend that they never agreed to violate the law. Instead, they merely boasted and “talked tough,” but, they submit, that talk never crystallized to form an agreement to do something illegal. (They assert no claim of entrapment.) Second, they contend that they never agreed with one another. If they agreed with anyone, they argue, they each agreed with the CI or the undercover agent, which is not a conspiracy. The record proves them wrong on both points. Marcus and Alvarez did much more than talk tough. There was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendants agreed to rob the stash house and sell their loot (keep in mind that the government gets the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the 14 Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 trial evidence, United States v. Lee, 558 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2009)): (1) the defendants met with the CI multiple times to discuss the robbery; (2) during each meeting the defendants sought details about the plan, such as whether the stash house guards were armed, how much coke would be there, and when the robbery would take place; (3) the defendants said they were willing to kill if necessary and indicated they had strong firepower to counter that of the guards; (4) they repeatedly discussed how they would execute the robbery—who would ride with whom, how the defendants would drive to the stash house, how many lookouts to have, and whether to go in quietly or “bum rush” like a “police raid”; (5) they acknowledged the quantity of drugs they expected (“15, 20 keys”) and discussed the “chops,” or how they would divide up their loot; (6) they repeatedly expressed concern that the coke had to be there; if it wasn’t, the defendants made clear that there would be consequences for the CI and “Loquito”; (7) the defendants showed up at the staging location on the day the robbery was to take place; (8) Aaron asked the CI if he was “strapped, too,” implying the defendants were armed as well; (9) Marcus said his car was the “getaway ride” and that he didn’t want Loquito to see it; (10) Marcus did a “heat run” to avoid police detection and said he felt Loquito had parked too conspicuously; and (11) the defendants time and again reaffirmed their commitment to doing the robbery—“I’m in,” “it’s gravy,” “I’m down,” “done deal,” “we got the crew,” “it’s on, dog,” “we in it a hundred percent, bro.” All of this evidence showed an intent to carry out the stash house robbery. Moreover, it showed an agreement Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 15 among the defendants to do so. Accordingly we must conclude that a rational jury could find the defendants guilty of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Marcus and Alvarez try to poke holes in this evidence, but to no avail. For instance, they argue that Aaron’s “strapped, too” question did not imply that the defendants were armed. This squares with the district court’s conclusion at sentencing that the defendants were not armed. This is because, according to the defendants, Aaron actually said “strapped-to,” which simply meant “armed,” rather than the government’s translation “strapped, too,” which meant “armed as well.” (The government’s transcription of the body-wire recording says “strapped, too.” The defense did not offer an alternate transcription for the jury.) In support, the defendants point to another occasion when Marcus used the same phrase in asking whether the stash house guards were armed. In that situation, the defendants contend, Marcus couldn’t have meant “armed as well” since he wouldn’t have been referring to himself, and therefore “strapped, too” should have been understood as “strapped-to.” But the record does not require that conclusion. Even though the district court came to a different conclusion at sentencing, we must view the evidence in a different light. (Remember that on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we draw all reasonable inferences in the government’s favor. Id.) Why couldn’t Marcus have been referring to himself as being armed as well? The defendants repeatedly talked about their own firearms and their willingness to kill when asking about the stash 16 Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 house guards. Moreover, the jury heard the word “strapped” referring to “armed” two more times, without hearing the word “too” (or “-to”) along with it. In one instance, Aaron asked if the guards would be “strappedup.” And then later, when discussing how they would enter the stash house, Marcus said, “We could come around the corner, Joe, strapped, and get in that door, Joe.” (emphasis added). So the contention that the defendants always used the term “strapped-to” to mean “armed” is belied by these other statements. With that, we conclude that the inference that “strapped, too” meant “armed as well” was a reasonable one, and as such, must conclude that Aaron asked the CI whether he, like the defendants, was also carrying firearms. Likewise, when Marcus told the CI, “I’m straight,” on November 28, the day the robbery was to take place, the jury need not necessarily have concluded, as the defendants suggest, that Marcus meant that he didn’t want any part of the robbery. Nothing in the record requires that conclusion. In fact, the record suggests the opposite. During the November 20 meeting, Alvarez reconfirmed to Loquito his commitment to the robbery plan by saying, “I assured you it straight, so it straight.” Essentially, the defendants ask us to reweigh the evidence. They argue that the defendants never contacted the CI on their own, the CI always called first; that they met infrequently; that the defendants exhibited an uneasiness about the undercover officer (e.g., “I don’t want to see dude again”); that Marcus worked on the day of the robbery, contrary to prior plans; and that Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 17 despite boasting about being experienced thieves, neither the CI nor the agents saw or found any cash, guns, or anything else typically associated with that activity (indeed, there was some evidence that Alvarez lived on the floor of his mother’s apartment—though this might have been construed as an incentive for Alvarez to participate in a lucrative robbery). But these are arguments more appropriate for a jury than for an appellate court—in fact, these were the defendants’ arguments to the jury in this case. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 664-70, 678-79, 682, 687, August 22, 2007.) We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. United States v. Squibb, 534 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008). The fact that the defendants drove away before actually going to the “stash house” falls in this category as well. The agreement—and thus the crime of conspir- acy—was already complete. Even if their disappearance from the staging area is viewed as withdrawal, it would not absolve them of all liability. See United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1232 (7th Cir. 1981). The defendants argue that this is evidence that a conspiracy never existed in the first place. But the jury rejected that interpretation in finding the defendants guilty. We cannot conclude that was an erroneous decision. The evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendants agreed to rob the fictitious stash house. So was the evidence establishing that the defendants agreed with one another, and not just with the CI or the undercover agent. The defendants bantered back and forth between each other about the plan of attack. They 18 Nos. 08-2094 & 08-2675 discussed among themselves how they would divide the loot, or the “chop,” as they called it. They talked about their prior experience doing robberies together. They showed up to the mall parking lot on the day of the robbery riding in the same car together. And, of course, they each reiterated their willingness to participate, while in each other’s company and referring to themselves as a group. They were a “team,” a “squad,” the “final crew.” We conclude that this was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that the defendants agreed, amongst themselves, to the robbery plan. Accordingly, we affirm the defendants’ convictions.