United States v. George
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18674
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- ATF conducted a sting against George and his half-brother Spagnola, involving a CI and an ATF agent posing as a drug courier; recordings captured the interactions forming the trial evidence.
- George recruited Spagnola to participate in a plan to obtain cocaine, initially as a stash-house robbery and later as a scheme to draw out and rob the courier.
- The plan evolved on June 25 to target the drug courier directly, with George claiming a ready buyer and disposal arrangements for five kilos of cocaine.
- Spagnola, armed, proceeded to the scene as planned; George did not attend the morning of the robbery and explained he had to watch his son.
- Both were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine after a joint trial.
- The court ultimately affirmed George’s conviction on the remaining sufficiency theory under aiding and abetting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence suffices for attempted possession of cocaine | George aided and abetted the attempt through pre-event acts | Absence on the day negates participation in the attempt | Evidence supports aiding and abetting; absence does not defeat liability |
| Whether aiding and abetting liability applies to an attempt crime | Aiding and abetting applies to attempt crimes | Need for active, contemporaneous participation | Sufficient active contribution before the day of the crime supports liability |
| Whether withdrawal can negate aiding and abetting liability | No withdrawal from aiding and abetting by absence alone | Withdrawal should negate liability if affirmative | Absence alone cannot constitute withdrawal; no effective withdrawal shown |
| Whether the absence of George on the day undermines the conspiracy/attempt verdict | Pre-event actions show liability | Absence undermines culpability for the attempt | Aiding and abetting analysis supports conviction despite absence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woods, 556 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.2009) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal appeals)
- United States v. Stevens, 453 F.3d 963 (7th Cir.2006) (elements and sufficiency doctrine guidance)
- United States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585 (7th Cir.1990) (aiding and abetting requires association, knowing participation, and active contribution)
- United States v. Sewell, 159 F.3d 275 (7th Cir.1998) (mere presence insufficient for aiding and abetting liability)
- United States v. Sacks, 620 F.2d 239 (10th Cir.1980) (oral communication can suffice to aid and abet when intended to complete the crime)