901 F.3d 896
7th Cir.2018Background
- Rivera and Thomas were charged with five Hobbs Act robberies and corresponding §924(c) firearm counts after five Milwaukee business robberies in January 2017; Thomas pleaded guilty and testified for the government, Rivera was tried by jury.
- Surveillance, phone records, and witness testimony placed Rivera at multiple scenes as driver/participant; Thomas testified Rivera supplied clothing and a 9mm, signaled or monitored robberies, and split proceeds.
- Two Family Dollar store robberies (13th Street and Hampton Street) formed the convictions at issue; the jury acquitted or deadlocked on several other counts.
- Defense emphasized Thomas’s credibility problems (prior lies, mental-health issues, substance use, inconsistent statements) and argued Rivera’s presence was mere association/innocent accompaniment.
- The district court denied Rivera’s Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) and Rule 33 (new trial) motions, finding the evidence sufficient and Thomas partially credible with corroboration from video and co‑defendant Zayas.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed the sufficiency de novo and the new‑trial denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Rivera as an aider and abettor of the two Family Dollar robberies and of the §924(c) firearm counts | Rivera: evidence showed only presence/association; Thomas’s testimony insufficient to prove Rivera intended to aid or knew a gun would be used | Government: Thomas’s testimony plus surveillance, phone records, pattern of conduct, shared proceeds, and Rivera’s post‑arrest behavior supported aiding and advance knowledge | Affirmed — evidence (including corroborated testimony and circumstantial proof) was sufficient for aiding and abetting and for knowledge of firearm use |
| Motion for a new trial based on witness credibility (Thomas) | Rivera: Thomas was incredible due to lies, contradictions, and courtroom “meltdown”; verdict against weight of evidence | Government/District Court: judge could credit parts of Thomas’s testimony; corroboration (video, Zayas) and jury’s observation supported credibility | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; it reasonably credited portions of Thomas’s testimony and relied on corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (defining aiding and abetting intent and preknowledge requirement for §924(c))
- United States v. Conley, 875 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for new‑trial review; deference to district court credibility determinations)
- United States v. Peterson, 823 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir. 2016) (sufficiency review standard; jury credibility role)
- United States v. Pribble, 127 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 1997) (sufficiency review and jury role in credibility)
- United States v. Betts‑Gaston, 860 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2017) (permitting consideration of related acts/evidence across counts to infer participation)
- United States v. Moore, 572 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- United States v. Davis, 724 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2013) (jury’s split verdicts reflect careful count‑by‑count deliberation)
- United States v. Mbaye, 827 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2016) (post‑arrest lies and attempts to destroy evidence bear on guilt)