Court Opinion

ID: 9484310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:47:57.837503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:09.332049
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the government introduced sufficient evidence to support Mad-kins’ conviction, I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion.
As I read the record, the jury could rightfully find from the testimony that Madkins and Page were in the automobile that was parked in the bank’s parking lot and that they (which one drove we do not know, but that is not important) then drove the automobile to the parking lot of the auto parts store, where Madkins left the vehicle and then pretended to work under the hood while holding a can of antifreeze. Although it is true that the government offered no proof that Madkins (or Page, for that matter) owned the automobile, the circumstances certainly permit (if indeed they do not in fact compel) a finding that both Page and Mad-kins were in possession and control of the vehicle and that they had put the pistol, along with the pair of gloves and knotted pantyhose, into the automobile in preparation for the commission of a crime. To find otherwise, the jury would have had to assume that Madkins was a stranger to the scene and that he was attempting to replenish the automobile’s supply of antifreeze out of the goodness of his heart. We expect jurors to possess many traits, but credulity is not among them, and it would be a credulous juror indeed who would draw that inference from the circumstances that led to Madkins’ arrest.
I would affirm the conviction.