Opinion ID: 2982493
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conspiracy To Money Launder

Text: Coffman contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy to money launder because the jury acquitted his wife, Megan, who was the only other co-conspirator. Coffman invokes the rule of consistency, which says that if coconspirators are tried together, an acquittal on conspiracy charges as to all but one coconspirator mandates acquittal on conspiracy charges as to the remaining defendant. See United States v. Williams, 503 F.2d 50, 54 (6th Cir. 1974). But this court has stated that the rule of consistency “is no longer good law.” Id. See Getsy v. Mitchell, 495 F.3d 295, 307 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (citing United States v. Crayton, 357 F.3d 560, 565-66 (6th Cir. 2004)). The jury’s acquittal of the only other co-conspirator allegedly involved in the conspiracy does not preclude their finding Coffman guilty of conspiracy to money launder. His argument on this issue fails. 8 Nos. 12-5574/5611.6090, United States v. Coffman, et al.