Court Opinion

ID: 9477970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:36:01.536564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:08.975637
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts II, III, and IV of the majority opinion.
I respectfully dissent from Part V of the majority opinion. I would hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict Flynn of interstate transportation of dynamite in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(d). Once it accepted as true Broderick’s testimony that Flynn had obtained the dynamite from “Ski across the river,” and “from across the river from Ski,” the jury could reasonably find that the dynamite had been moved in interstate commerce. Our task is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences. United States v. Long Elk, 805 F.2d 826, 829 (8th Cir.1986). I cannot agree with the majority that a reasonably minded jury must have been left with a reasonable doubt regarding the interstate transportation of the dynamite. Cf. United States v. Minor, 815 F.2d 472 (8th Cir.1986).