United States v. Akram Muhammad, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7502

Muhammad was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and challenged the denial of a judgment of acquittal and a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence and juror misconduct.
Indictment dated December 15, 2014, arising from federal/state efforts to arrest Veltrez Black; surveillance shows Black exiting an apartment with Muhammad and another person, heading to Black’s girlfriend’s Buick Rendezvous.
ATF Special Agent McCarthy testified he observed Muhammad about 15 feet away behind the Buick’s open rear door, commanded him to raise his hands, and saw movements he characterized as attempting to secrete a firearm.
After Muhammad was secured, agents observed a Sig Sauer .45 handgun on the Buick’s floor behind the driver’s seat; McCarthy acknowledged he did not see a firearm until it was found.
Muhammad presented defense testimony through a private investigator suggesting the vehicle’s interior could permit a firearm to move, with no DNA or fingerprints on the gun; trial occurred April 28–29, 2015; verdict was guilty and motions followed, including a post-trial juror misconduct challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence suffices to prove possession	Muhammad argues no proof he possessed the firearm.	Muhammad contends the officer did not witness possession or control.	Evidence supports possession inference; jury reasonably found possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether eyewitness inability to see waistband defeats sufficiency	No direct sight of Muhammad holding the weapon.	Disputed inference that he possessed the firearm given limited view.	Sufficiency upheld; jury could infer possession from Muhammad’s movements and concealment.
Whether the district court abused its discretion on juror misconduct claims	Outside influence from juror and spouse warranted hearing.	No colorable evidence of outside influence; hearing not required.	No abuse; affidavits lacked specific, credible details; no colorable claim of outside influence.
Standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal and joint handling of juror misconduct	Appellant challenges the standard and evidentiary procedures.	District court’s decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion and deference to jury credibility.	De novo review for sufficiency; abuse-of-discretion standard applied to juror misconduct rulings; no reversible error.

United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221 (8th Cir. 2015) (circumstantial possession inferences permitted when evidence supports disposal hypothesis)
United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2006) (one innocent explanation does not preclude jury from finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Ragland, 555 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (credibility left to jury; appellate court does not reassess witness credibility)
United States v. Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2006) (extraneous influence evidence generally requires colorable claim for hearing)
United States v. Flenoid, 718 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1983) (trial testimony showing possible concealment can support possession finding)
United States v. Grady, 665 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1981) (public trial attendance not indicative of improper influence)
United States v. Moses, 15 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 1994) (speculative, unsubstantiated allegations do not require an evidentiary hearing)
United States v. Patterson, 684 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2012) (jurors presumed to follow court instructions not to discuss case)
United States v. Caldwell, 83 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing juror misconduct decisions)
United States v. Wilson, 619 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2010) (credibility of witnesses left to jury when evidence conflicts)
United States v. Thomas, 593 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2010) (conflicting hypotheses; appellate court defers to jury on credibility)