Opinion ID: 180412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence for Stewart's conviction

Text: Stewart next argues that the jury was not presented with sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction because the only direct evidence identifying Stewart as a participant in the crime came from Stewart's coconspirators. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in support of a jury verdict, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and gives the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the testimony. United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 589 (6th Cir.2006). A jury verdict is supported by sufficient evidence if  any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). In sum, a defendant claiming insufficiency of the evidence bears a very heavy burden. Abboud, 438 F.3d at 589 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Stewart argues that because both of his testifying coconspirators received favorable treatment for cooperating with the government, the evidence at trial was not sufficient for the jury to convict him. As the government points out, however, [e]ven the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction. United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800, 808 (6th Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (finding the testimony of the defendant's coconspirators to be a sufficient basis for conviction). The fact that the coconspirators were cooperating with the government as a result of a plea bargain does not change the result. United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 149 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that whether witnesses are cooperating with the government is irrelevant to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim). Moreover, the government put forth circumstantial evidence corroborating various elements of the coconspirators' testimony, thereby further supporting the case against Stewart. The present case is distinguishable from United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.2005), cited by Stewart, in which the only evidence tying the defendant to a bank robbery was the defendant's presence with the perpetrators when they were arrested, with no proof regarding the identity of an unknown person present at various stages of the crime. Id., 414 F.3d at 1296. In contrast to the facts in Summers, eyewitnesses in the present case testified to Stewart's role in the crime and circumstantial evidence corroborated their story. Stewart has thus failed to meet his very heavy burden of showing that, based on the government's evidence, no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Abboud, 438 F.3d at 589.