Opinion ID: 489490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Lea Ricard's Motion for Acquittal

Text: 29 Lea Ricard asserts that there was no proof that she knew what she asked William Nichols to do for her was illegal. Therefore, she lacked the requisite intent to enter into a conspiracy to steal or knowingly convert government information. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 371, 641. Yet her statements on tape contradict that assertion. She stated that Nichols would be very expensive, yet that he is not allowed to accept money legally. She told Cook that Nichols is not really supposed to be giving out this information and that he is very, very paranoid about this. And she knew that Nichols would lose his job if caught. Furthermore, her behavior when confronted by Customs Internal Affairs Agents suggested consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Parness, 503 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 775, 42 L.Ed.2d 801 (1975). The jury had sufficient evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.