Opinion ID: 627196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Vasquez moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case-in-chief and again after the close of the evidence. This court reviews the district court's denial of a motion for acquittal de novo. United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521, 522 (5th Cir.1995). A motion for acquittal should be granted if the government fails to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found that each essential element of the offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998). This court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations made in the government's favor. United States v. Santillana, 604 F.3d 192, 195 (5th Cir.2010).  The jury may choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence: The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt. Id. (citing United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied)). `[C]ircumstances altogether inconclusive, if separately considered, may, by their number and joint operation, especially when corroborated by moral coincidences, be sufficient to constitute conclusive proof.' United States v. Ayala, 887 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Coggeshall v. United States ( The Slavers ), 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 383, 17 L.Ed. 911, 914-15 (1864) (emphasis supplied)). Jurors may properly `use their common sense' and `evaluate the facts in light of their common knowledge of the natural tendencies and inclinations of human beings'. Ayala, 887 F.2d at 67 (quoting United States v. Henry, 849 F.2d 1534, 1537 (5th Cir.1988)).