Opinion ID: 4519033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence for the witness tampering conviction, Graves submits, without any further argument, that “there was insufficient proof present [sic] to the Jury upon which could be the foundation for a conviction.” (Appellant Br. at 16) That barebones assertion, which does not even address the evidence the government presented, also constitutes a forfeiture of Graves’s argument. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted) (first and third alterations in original) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed [forfeited]. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”). But, even assuming Graves did not forfeit his argument, the jury had more than sufficient evidence to convict Graves. We must uphold a conviction “if the evidence, viewed in the light 3 No. 19-5268 United States v. Graves most favorable to the government, would allow a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 588 (quotation omitted) (6th Cir. 2003). We “neither independently weigh[] the evidence, nor judge[] the credibility of witnesses who testified at trial.” United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 996 (citation omitted) (6th Cir. 1999). Graves was convicted under the federal witness tampering statute, which makes it a crime to “knowingly use[] intimidation, threaten[], or corruptly persuade[] another person, or attempt[] to do so, or engage[] in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to . . . cause or induce any person to . . . withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A). We have held that a defendant urging a witness in an official proceeding to lie is sufficient evidence of witness tampering. See United States v. Burns, 298 F.3d 523, 540 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[Defendant] attempted to ‘corruptly persuade’ [the witness] by urging him to lie about the basis of their relationship”); United States v. Lavictor, 848 F.3d 428, 458–59 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[Defendant’s] conduct in this case was tantamount to an encouragement to lie” because “[h]e wrote out an affidavit and requested that [the witness] copy it in her own handwriting and present it to the court.”). Here, Graves’s letter and subsequent call to Hill show that he encouraged Hill to feign mental stress and check herself into a hospital for the purpose of making herself unavailable to testify against him. In other words, he urged Hill to engage in fraud to resist a lawful subpoena to testify, and he thereby “induce[d] [Hill] to . . . withhold testimony . . . from an official proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A). This proof was sufficient to sustain Graves’s conviction of witness 4 No. 19-5268 United States v. Graves tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A). See Burns, 298 F.3d at 540; Lavictor, 848 F.3d at 458–59.