Opinion ID: 540010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Raymond E. Coffie.

Text: 74 Coffie owned a small construction business in the Bronx. He rented beepers to the Torres Organization over a two-year period, and supplied members of the Organization with false income documents such as a paycheck, earning statements, and wage and tax statements. In addition, on one occasion he supplied and delivered an air conditioning unit to one of the locations where heroin was processed. The ledgers of the Torres Organization reflect more than $200,000 in payments to Coffie. He was a participant in a number of intercepted telephone conversations with Flores, in one of which Coffie made reference to a recent telephone conversation he had had with Victor. 75 While conceding that much evidence was offered by the Government to show that ... Coffie freely associated with members of the conspiracy and that some actions he took actually aided the conspiracy, Coffie claims that a careful analysis of the proof against him will demonstrate, amply, that the jury did not have sufficient proof before it to find that he knew of the conspiracy or that he willfully associated himself with it. Rather, Coffie contends that the prosecution failed to establish the element of guilty knowledge that would otherwise transform his routine business activities, such as renting beepers and selling air-conditioners, from unremarkable commerce into the intentional furtherance of a heroin conspiracy. 76 We disagree. In United States v. Zambrano, 776 F.2d 1091 (2d Cir.1985), we said: 77 [E]vidence that a defendant simply supplies goods, innocent in themselves, to someone who intended to use them illegally is not enough to support a conviction for conspiracy. But, if there is something more, some indication that the defendant knew of and intended to further the illegal venture, that he somehow encouraged the illegal use of the goods or had a stake in such use, sufficient evidence has been presented to enable the jury to conclude the defendant had knowledge of and an intent to join in the conspiracy.... 78 Id. at 1095 (emphasis added); cf. United States v. Rush, 666 F.2d 10, 11-12 (2d Cir.1981) (loaning money for purchase of marijuana at an exorbitant and usurious profit ... through a clandestine method sufficient to convict for conspiracy; defendant conceded knowledge of illegal use of loan proceeds); United States v. Piampiano, 271 F.2d 273 (2d Cir.1959) (vegetable dealer supplying sugar to illegal distillery convicted of conspiracy; knowledge implied from circumstances, including departure from normal business and secretive mode of transacting sugar business). 79 There was clearly something more in this case. The jury could properly infer that in supplying false income documents to members of the Torres Organization, Coffie was aware that they required this assistance because they were not engaged in legitimate activities which would routinely provide them with such documents. More to the point, a number of the taped telephone conversations were more than sufficient to warrant a jury conclusion that Coffie knew the business in which the Torres Organization was engaged. When arranging with Coffie to install an air conditioner at one of the heroin processing locations, for example, Flores told Coffie that the installation would have to take place late at night or before they start, to which Coffie replied no problem. On another occasion, Flores and Coffie engaged in an extensive discussion of beeper malfunctions from which the jury was entitled to infer that Coffie knew the use to which the beepers were being put. In sum, as the district court concluded, While there may be no 'smoking gun' heroin transaction linking Coffie to the conspiracy, there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that, when viewed together, supports the jury's conclusion and is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction. United States v. Torres, 699 F.Supp. 419, 426 (S.D.N.Y.1988). 80