Opinion ID: 469177
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 19 The defendants argue that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their participation in the conspiracy to rig SAP-69(133) Stephens County and SAP-50(82) Murray County/city, and, therefore, did not establish the scheme-to-defraud element in the mail fraud counts. The defendants contend that most of the evidence was irrelevant to the defendants' conduct in bidding on these particular contracts. While we agree that much of the evidence adduced related to the other projects charged under the antitrust count, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendants' convictions for mail fraud. 8 20 As an appellate court reviewing a criminal conviction, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Shelton, 736 F.2d 1397 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 185, 83 L.Ed.2d 119 (1984). The verdicts cannot be set aside if they are supported by substantial evidence. Id. In reviewing the evidence, this court must examine both direct and circumstantial evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. 21 In United States v. Metropolitan Enterprises, Inc., 728 F.2d 444, 450 (10th Cir.1984), this court stated that a conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. The prosecution must prove that the conspirators explicitly or tacitly came to a mutual understanding. Id. at 451. 22 SAP-50(81) and (82) Murray County and SAP-69(133) Stephens County were let on April 25, 1980. Anthony reserved a room at the Lincoln Plaza the night before the lettings and attended the AGC cocktail party early in the evening. Ray Broce, Milton Beyer, Doc Taylor, and Bud Vance from Broce Construction and James Freeman from Frascon also stayed at the hotel. 23 Broce, Beyer, Taylor, Vance, and Freeman testified that these three projects were rigged. SAP-50(81), the open road contract in Murray County, was bid on by Broce and Frascon. Broce won the contract and eventually subcontracted about six percent of it back to the defendants. Washita, Frascon, and Broce submitted bids on SAP-50(82). The defendants were awarded the contract. 24 Broce and Beyer testified that the agreement on the Murray County projects merely reflected the conspirators' previous arrangement on F-91(15). 9 Broce testified that he turned it [SAP-50(82) ] over to Bill, the city part. I told Bill that we weren't interested in it, and we were interested in the dirt section. Broce stated that he agreed that his company would submit a complimentary bid on SAP-50(82), the job that Anthony was to get. Beyer, Taylor, and Vance testified that a complimentary bid was submitted on SAP-50(82). They testified that Anthony came to their work room at the hotel later that night and gave them a unit price, which was used in Broce's bid proposal for SAP-50(81) since Washita would be subcontracting a small percentage of the work on that project. No one could remember if the same number was used in the company's complimentary bid for SAP-50(82). 25 Broce also testified to a conversation he had at the cocktail party with Freeman, who volunteered to honor Broce's low bid in F-91(15) and withhold his bid on SAP-50(81) and (82). Freeman testified that he submitted bids on these jobs because Ray Broce had asked him to but that his bids were deliberately noncompetitive. He testified that Beyer gave him figures on the split jobs. Because he assumed that the figures represented Broce's low bids, Freeman testified that he was surprised when Washita won SAP-50(82). 26 Beyer testified to an unwritten deal with the contractors that they don't bother the low bidder the second time around. The deal worked to Broce's and Washita's advantage in bidding SAP-50(81) and (82) because of the previous arrangement in F-91(15). Taylor testified that Broce submitted three bids, separate bids on SAP-50(81) and (82) and a tied bid on both projects, because Beyer believed that ODOT would expect a comprehensive bid since Broce had submitted the low bid in F-91(15). Beyer testified it took a little work to juggle the figures to be low bidder on the open road portion, noncompetitive on the city part, and also noncompetitive on the tied bid. 27 Beyer also testified he personally arranged that Broce would be low bidder on SAP-69(133) Stephens County. After concluding that the defendants and Frascon were obvious bidders because they were nearest to the area, Beyer called Anthony and asked him if he would let us have the job because we [sic] was already there .... He agreed to it. Beyer also contacted Freeman, who stated that he did not want the contract and agreed to allow Broce to win the contract. Beyer stated that he told the defendants and Freeman what our bid would be and they agreed that they wouldn't ... bother us, and we submitted our bid. Beyer asked both of the contractors to submit complimentary bids. In fact, Broce, Washita, and Frascon, submitted bids on SAP-69(133) Stephens County. Broce won the contract with the lowest bid. 28 Beyer's testimony was corroborated by Taylor, who testified that Beyer told him that SAP-69(133) was worked out. Freeman also stated that when Beyer came to Freeman's room with figures on SAP-50(81) and (82), Beyer asked him to submit a complimentary bid on SAP-69(133) and provided him the necessary figures on that project. 29 Anthony denied participating in any conspiracy to rig ODOT projects, although he admitted knowing that collusive bidding was being arranged on some projects by Broce and South Prairie. The defendants offered noncollusive reasons why their bids on some contracts were too high. Although they presented the testimony of several character witnesses, no one from the road contracting industry testified on behalf of the defendants. The defendants contend that the evidence is as consistent with legitimate solicitation of bids and coordination between general contractors and subcontractors as it is with bidrigging. Moreover, the defendants argue, the government's witnesses suffered from weak independent recollection, and there were inconsistencies in their stories. 30 Our reading of the record indicates the prosecution witnesses were not enthusiastic about testifying. Their recall was often hazy, and the prosecutor on several occasions resorted to introducing grand jury testimony as impeachment on crucial evidentiary points. 10 Each of these weaknesses was highlighted by defense counsel during cross-examination and in his closing argument. 31 Although these weaknesses may diminish the credibility of the witnesses, they do not establish there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions as a matter of law. It is the exclusive function of the jury to observe the prosecution and defense witnesses, appraise their credibility, determine the weight to be given their testimony, draw permissible inferences therefrom, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and reach ultimate conclusions of fact. United States v. Shelton, 736 F.2d 1397 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 185, 83 L.Ed.2d 119 (1984). The jury was adequately instructed on evaluating contradictory statements, prior convictions, bias, and grants of immunity in assessing the credibility of witnesses. Therefore, we hold that a reasonable jury could have believed Ray Broce and Milton Beyer when they testified that they had contacted Anthony about these projects and received active support in their attempts to rig the bids.