Opinion ID: 3183071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Whitlow contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. In considering Whitlow’s challenge to the jury’s verdict, we review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 2013). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict and reversing ‘only where no reasonable jury could find all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 555 (8th Cir. 2012)). We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Dugan, 238 F.3d 1041, 1044–45 (8th Cir. 2001). -7- Whitlow asserts that the only evidence directly connecting him to the conspiracy or any individual fraudulent wire transfers is the testimony of Clemons, Amerson, and Jordan. Whitlow asserts this testimony may be sufficient to show these three individuals were engaged in a wire fraud scheme. But without additional corroborating evidence, he argues, it is insufficient to link him to their criminal activity. Initially, we note it is not necessary for accomplice testimony to be corroborated to uphold a conviction. See United States v. Fuller, 557 F.3d 859, 863 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Whitlow argues that Clemons, Amerson, and Jordan were not credible witnesses because they all testified pursuant to beneficial plea agreements, these are matters for the jury. “We have repeatedly upheld jury verdicts based solely on the testimony of co-conspirators and cooperating witnesses, noting that it is within the province of the jury to make credibility assessments and resolve conflicting testimony.” United States v. Coleman, 525 F.3d 665, 666 (8th Cir. 2008). Barring testimony that is incredible on its face, it was up to the jury to decide whether to believe some, all, or none of the testimony of Clemons, Amerson, and Jordan. Fuller, 557 F.3d at 863. Furthermore, the evidence independently corroborating the co-conspirator statements also supports the guilty verdict. In light of all the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that “no reasonable jury” could have found Whitlow guilty of the conspiracy and the individual wire transfer charges.3 See Cole, 721 F.3d at 1021. 3 Whitlow separately appeals the district court’s denial of his three motions for a judgment of acquittal which were likewise based on insufficiency of the evidence. We review de novo the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Chatmon, 742 F.3d 350, 352 (8th Cir. 2014). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accept all reasonable inferences that may be drawn in favor of the verdict, and we affirm unless no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty. Id. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Whitlow’s motions for judgment of acquittal. -8-