Opinion ID: 2997555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendants also contend that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions as to both counts. Viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government as we must, United States v. Hicks, 368 F.3d 801, 804-05 (7th Cir. 2004), their challenge fails. It is impossible for us to say that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. “To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government must prove that ‘two or more persons joined together for the purpose of committing a criminal act and that the charged party knew of and intended to join the agreement.’ ” United States v. Macedo, 371 F.3d 957, 965 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Adkins, 274 F.3d 444, 450 (7th Cir. 2001)). But direct evidence of the conspiratorial agreement is not necessary. A jury may “find an agreement to conspire based upon circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn [from] the relationship of the parties, their overt acts, and the totality of their conduct.” Id. (quotation omitted). Moreover, 10 Nos. 03-2089 & 03-2129 [d]ue to the covert nature of a conspiracy, direct evidence is rare and not only is the use of circumstantial evidence permissible, but circumstantial evidence may be the sole support for a conviction. . . . Circumstantial evidence is not less probative than direct evidence and, in some cases is even more reliable. . . . The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence so long as the total evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Rodriguez, 53 F.3d 1439, 1445 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We summarize briefly the key evidence the government introduced at trial which permitted the jury to infer that Re and Calabrese conspired to extort Leach: (1) Re and Calabrese knew each other and both lived near Chicago, Illinois; (2) Re and Calabrese contacted each other frequently in the days leading up to Leach’s attack; (3) both were in Florida on the day Leach was attacked; (4) Re had tried unsuccessfully to sell his warehouse (which was vacant a majority of the time) to Daughtry; (5) Re had a strong financial motive to extort Leach because Leach’s lease of his warehouse to Daughtry cost Re his sale; (6) Leach and Re had an acrimonious history; (7) Leach’s assailants, after confirming that Leach owned the warehouse and knew Daughtry, indicated during the attack that their purpose was to induce Leach to convince Daughtry to break his lease; (8) Re indicated to Leach after the assault that he believed Leach could “get Daughtry out” if Leach wanted to do so; (9) Leach positively identified Calabrese (also known as “Bender”) as one of his attackers; and (10) the gun taken from Leach during his attack was linked to Calabrese. This circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the defendants’ convictions as to both counts.