Opinion ID: 616525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: De La Torre

Text: De la Torre argues that the government’s case relies entirely on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence. Specifically, De La Torre challenges four aspects of the government’s evidence against him: (1) his testifying co-Defendants did not identify him in court; (2) the government’s concession that no exchange took place in the Home Depot parking lot; (3) Jackie Trivette’s testimony that the man in the hotel room encounter (purportedly De La Torre) told him that he did not have any methamphetamine; and (4) the fact that the government never searched his Mercedes or hotel room. Ample evidence, however, supported the jury’s conclusion that De La Torre intentionally joined and participated in the methamphetamine conspiracy. The government’s evidence placed De La Torre at the scene of the expected drug transaction (the Home Depot parking lot) shortly after his check-in at the hotel and the methamphetamine supplier’s call to Tony Trivette that set the meeting place. Jackie Trivette’s testimony established that the young man (identified by agents as De La Torre) refused to accept the money in the parking lot, but instead told Jackie to follow him to a hotel. Jackie Trivette left the money on the dresser in De La Torre’s hotel room, in De La Torre’s presence, and agents later saw co-Defendant Alcaraz -8- Nos. 10-5419, 10-5808 United States v. Cervantes-Coronado; De La Torre place an object in De La Torre’s Mercedes. The government further linked the telephone number that De La Torre used to reserve the hotel room with phone calls made by the methamphetamine supplier within minutes of the Home Depot rendezvous. Neither the circumstantial nature of this evidence nor the lack of corroboration warrants a judgment of acquittal. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 628 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that coconspirator’s uncorroborated testimony may support conspiracy conviction); Henley, 360 F.3d at 514 (noting that “slight” proof can tie a defendant to a conspiracy). This evidence does more than place De La Torre at the scene of a money exchange; it shows him both arriving at a pre-ordained location for a drug transaction and providing instructions for the Trivettes to make payment in a secure location. It also permits the reasonable inference that De La Torre coordinated the Home Depot meeting with the methamphetamine supplier. Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences in the government’s favor, we conclude that a rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that De La Torre committed the drug conspiracy offense.