Opinion ID: 792738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence as to Brown

Text: 27 Brown contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on the charges of conspiracy and attempt to possess more than 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute. A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence `faces a nearly insurmountable hurdle . . . [in that] we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, defer to the credibility determination of the jury, and overturn a verdict only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Jackson, 177 F.3d 628, 630 (7th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Moore, 115 F.3d 1348, 1363 (7th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 28 Brown was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 846 of conspiracy and attempt to violate 21 U.S.C. § 841, possession of a controlled substance 5 with intent to distribute. A conspiracy is `a combination or confederation between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing a criminal act through their joint efforts.' United States v. South, 28 F.3d 619, 627 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir.1990) (quotations omitted) (citations omitted)). To prove that Brown was guilty of the charged conspiracy, the government was required to prove both that he knew of the conspiracy and that he intended to join it. Id. (citing United States v. Hubbard, 22 F.3d 1410, 1414-15 (7th Cir.1994)). 29 Brown argues the evidence is insufficient to prove that he joined a conspiracy or attempted to possess a controlled substance because there is no evidence that he knew there would be cocaine in the car that was the target of the coconspirators' theft scheme. We disagree. The June 24 conversation between Polk and Brown describes a plan to steal contraband from a car that was to be used in a transaction involving a large amount of cocaine and a significant sum of money. Although phrased in the shorthand of street vernacular, Polk's proposal refers to a drug-dealer friend who would arrange a transaction involving some work (meaning narcotics, Polk explained at trial) along the lines of two keys (meaning two kilograms of cocaine), and also refers to a man with forty or forty-five stacks ($40,000-$45,000). Polk told Brown that his friend would let him know where the car with the loot was parked, Grady would break into the car, and they would steal its contents: Grady'll get in the car, he gets in the car, we just grab the loot. Significantly, Polk also told Brown that we split up the cash and my boy always get the dope. 30 Brown attempts to discount Polk's mention of his boy getting the dope in two ways. First, he says that because he did not specifically acknowledge Polk's mention of the dope, the jury could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he even heard or understood the comment. Second, he argues that Polk's scenario precluded the very possibility of the presence of drugs in the car. He reasons that because Polk described his friend as a drug dealer, the plan envisioned stealing from an out-of-town drug buyer —that is, stealing cash, not drugs. 31 Brown's interpretation of the record essentially asks us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him instead of viewing it in the light most favorable to the government. See Jackson, 177 F.3d at 631. The record as a whole supports the conclusion that Brown understood the plan would include taking some dope from the car along with cash and that Polk then would distribute the dope to his boy and the coconspirators would split the cash. Although Polk's set-up story was coded and somewhat cryptic, it certainly did not preclude the presence of drugs in the car, as Brown contends. Brown's failure to acknowledge Polk's reference to dope does not compel a conclusion that he did not hear or understand the remark. The jury could reasonably infer from the references to two keys and delivering the dope to Polk's boy that Brown knew stealing cocaine was part of the plan. Brown's experience as a law enforcement officer and his familiarity with Polk also support the conclusion that he understood the terminology and the object of the plan. 32 Furthermore, the videotape of the theft depicts Brown standing near the open trunk of the car and at times looking directly into the trunk where the cash and sham kilo were found. He is also seen opening the door of Polk's car for Polk to transfer the cocaine package and Kuykendoll to transfer the cash. Polk testified that Brown saw both items in the trunk and that Brown watched as he transferred the fake drugs to his car. Agent Evans and Polk both testified that the sham cocaine package looked like what a kilogram brick of cocaine might look like on the street. Finally, after the theft Polk joked about Grady being so greedy he would ask to have a piece of the kilo. Instead of expressing any surprise that the theft had netted a kilogram of cocaine as well as cash, Brown joined in the joking, asking, Can I get some for myself? 33 Finally, Brown argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the drug counts because he and Polk never specifically discussed any particular drug type or quantity, much less 500 or more grams of cocaine. But Brown need not have known the specific drug type or quantity to be found guilty of conspiring or attempting to violate § 841. See United States v. Martinez, 301 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Cir.2002) ([D]rug type and quantity are not elements of the offense.... Accordingly, a defendant may be convicted under § 841(a)(1) even if he does not know the type or quantity of the controlled substance.). The jury's determination of drug type and quantity was important to the sentence, but Brown's only sentencing issue on appeal is a plain error argument under Booker and Paladino, which we will address in a moment. In any event, the jury's verdict on drug type and quantity has sufficient evidentiary support: Polk and Brown discussed two keys, meaning two kilograms of cocaine, and forty or forty-five stacks, meaning $40,000-$45,000, an amount of money consistent with a drug transaction involving more than 500 grams of cocaine. 34