Opinion ID: 6333805
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conspiracy to Distribute Fentanyl

Text: Resulting in Death The jury also convicted Zayas of conspiring to distribute (or distributing) a controlled substance resulting in death as charged in Count 1. To establish a conspiracy, the government must prove a shared unity of purpose, an intent to achieve a common goal, and an agreement to work together 36 See United States v. Garner, 915 F.3d 167, 169 (3d Cir. 2019) (“[W]e do not draw inferences in the defendant’s favor when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence . . . .”). 37 Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d at 432. 38 United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d 448, 450 (3d Cir. 1989). 39 See United States v. Miller, 527 F.3d 54, 60 (2008) (“[W]e must uphold a jury’s verdict ‘if there is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (quoting United States v. Brown, 3 F.3d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1993))). 12 toward that goal.40 The government produced enough evidence to prove that Zayas distributed fentanyl to Price as the result of a preconceived scheme or common understanding with Haines.41 According to Zayas, three people could be considered co-conspirators: Dee, Price, or Haines. He argues however, that the evidence fails to establish the required elements of conspiracy between himself and any of those three individuals. Although we agree that a rational trier of fact could not find a conspiratorial agreement between Zayas and Dee or Price, Zayas is incorrect about Haines.42 Zayas argues that “[w]hile [he] indicated that he intended to compensate Justin [Haines], the record does not show that Justin expected compensation or that he had any knowledge that in being in Zayas’s presence he was participating in an illegal conspiracy.”43 This is only half true. Zayas and Haines were in the car together and picked up the money from Price. They also both returned and delivered the drugs to her. The text messages between Zayas and Price reveal that they intended to tip Haines for acting as the middleman in the transaction. He was part of a conspiratorial agreement with Zayas to obtain drugs for Price and then distribute drugs to her. 40 United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 342 (3d Cir. 2002). 41 See United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 2016). 42 In response to Zayas’s Rule 29 motion for acquittal of the conspiracy count, along with finding that the jury could convict Zayas for conspiracy with Haines, the District Court incorrectly concluded Zayas could also be found to have conspired with Price. However, “[i]t is well-settled that a simple buyer-seller relationship, without any prior or contemporaneous understanding beyond the sale agreement itself, is insufficient to establish that the buyer was a member of the seller’s conspiracy.” United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). The government never argued Price was a co-conspirator with Zayas. 43 Appellant Br. at 23. 13 Yet the most substantial evidence of an agreement between Zayas and Haines was Zayas’s description of going with Haines to get the drugs after picking up the money from Price. Zayas explained that he drove Haines to a street corner, dropped him off, and waited for Haines to contact him by cell phone. When Haines contacted Zayas a couple of minutes later, Zayas picked up Haines and the two returned to Price’s house to deliver the drugs. The jury could hardly conclude anything other than that Zayas and Haines conspired together to distribute the controlled substance to Price.