*2 HIGGINBOTHAM, Bеfore SLOVITER MANSMANN, Judges. Circuit OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Judge. Circuit In appeal this we are asked examine sufficiency supporting evidence jury guilty verdicts of of conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles in inter- state commerce violation of 18 U.S.C. and of receiving a stolen §§ motor vehicle violation of 18 U.S.C. 2313. We have reviewed the evidence in § light prosecution most favorable to the and have determined that the admittedly sparse this record is sufficient well, to sustain the verdicts. As we have allegations examined the of error and find judge trial correctly applied the law and did not abuse his discretion. Ac- cordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence. multi-count,
In a multi-defendant indict- ment, defendant Paul charged with one count of stolen motor vehicles in interstate com- merce in violatiоn of 18 U.S.C. 371 and §§ (Count I) and with one count of receiv- ing a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 stolen, not more than 10). shall be fined (Count Three of the five U.S.C. § $5,000 five imprisoned not more than Briggs and or guilty and pleaded defendants Klinger years were tried be- both. Ronald co-defendant Briggs guilty jury found jury. fore a must es While the on both counts. conspiracy beyond a elements of tablish the particular essence, doubt, entirely of this done facts can be reasonable *3 alleged conspiratorial Inadi, acts the through case involve evidence. circumstantial Gillum, defendant Moreover, Shirl and the existence of a supra John at 817. to the interstate they relate Briggs conspiracy can inferred “from evidence be stolen 1978 Internation- transportation of a from related facts and circumstances logi truck. and appears al tractor it as a reasonable which inference, par the that the activities of cal carried on ticipants ... could not have been II. preconceived except as the result of sufficiency of the challenges the Briggs understanding.” common Unit scheme or reviewing grounds. In on two evidence (3d Ellis, 154, 160 v. 595 F.3d ed States claims, determine whether we must both 838, denied, Cir.1979), 444 U.S. cert. 100 evidence, when viewed there is substantial 75, (1979). 49 S.Ct. 62 L.Ed.2d govern- to the light in most the favorable ment, the verdict. United uphold jury’s to however, note, that the relation We (3d Adams, 1113 759 v. States alone, seller, buyer standing ship of a and sufficient Cir.1985). find evidence We the contemporaneous any prior or without claims. regard in this as to both understanding beyond the mere sales conspirаcy
agreement, does
establish
to
not
though
goods even
the
transport stolen
nature of
parties know of the stolen
the
single
sale
argues
first
circumstances,
goods. Under
there
these
was insuf-
truck
of the International
underly
the
joint objective
no
to commit
is
the con-
him a member of
ficient to make
here,
buyer’s
the
ing
charged
offense
in
transport vehicles
interstate
spiracy to
buy
the seller’s is to sell.
purpose is to
and
that at
commerce. He asserts
best
Mancillas, 580 F.2d
v.
United States
government’s proof
that was
establishes
(7th Cir.1978),
439 U.S.
1307
buyer
conspirator
not a
merely a
(1978).
99 S.Ct.
58 L.Ed.2d
in
com-
transport
the vehicle
interstate
merce.
us.
not the case before
The
Such is
evidence,
must
as we
when viewed
begin
of crimi
We
with the essence
government,
light most favorable
agreement,
conspiracy
is an
ei
nal
which
from which
circumstances
substantiates
implicit, to
an un
explicit or
commit
ther
conspir
participation
Briggs’ active
act, combined with intent to commit
lawful
motor vehicles in
acy
act,
intent to
an unlawful
combined with
inferred.
could be
interstate
commerce
underlying
offense. United
commit
there is more
proves that
The evidence
Cir.1984),
(3d
Inadi, 748 F.2d
agreement involved in
—
sales
than a mere
—,
granted,
rt.
ce
S.Ct.
this case.
(1985);
L.Ed.2d 271
United
Wander,
F.2d 1251
Cir.
States v.
that co-
established
At trial
1979).
underlying offense involved
co-
and another
conspirator John Gillum
transportation of stolen vehicles
here is the
a 1978 Inter-
conspirator,
stole
Shirl
pertinent part
commerce.
in interstate
in Indiana.
tractor
national
truck
provides:
wife,
18 U.S.C.
drove
truck
and his
Sandra
§
Pennsyl-
Shippenville,
residence in
or for-
to their
transports
interstate
Whoever
The truck
no certificate
title
air- vania.
had
a motor vehicle or
eign commerce
ap-
registration. Kapp
documentary
craft,
to have been
knowing the same
10H
perwork
produced.
paperwork
By supplying
for this
neces-
was
proached
truck, telling Briggs
operate the
sary
registra-
fraudulent certificates of title and
an insur-
product
papers
only implicitly
that the truck was
tion
not
“did
and the owner
not want
agreed
participate
ance scam
in the unlawful act
Briggs provided
up again.”
to turn
but also exhibited the intent to commit-the
Kapp made
documents and
use
fraudulent
underlying
supplying
offense. The
for several months to haul
of the vehicle
paperwork
conspiracy goes
essential to the
coal.
agreement
beyond
sup-
mere sales
ports
jury’s
determination
Subsequently, Kapp and Gillum sold the
a participant
in the
$5,000.00
truck to
International
transport stolen
vehicles
interstate com-
specifically
in cash. Gillum
buyer
merce. That
is the
is imma-
lacking
the vehicle was stolen
terial;
supplied
paperwork
that he
essential
legitimate paperwork necessary
op-
Accordingly,
sufficiency
is critical.
*4
Briggs responded by say-
erate the truck.
(cid:127)
claim fails.
ing:
got
paperwork.”
the
“I’ve
supplied the
Although Briggs initially
B.
paperwork Kapp
which would
fraudulent
govern-
next contends that
the
operated within the
allow the truck to be
ment did not introduce sufficient evidence
interstate,
alone is not suffi-
state or
this
of thе interstate character of the
In-
1978
conspiracy, for
cient to link him to the
support
ternational truck to
his conviction
testimony it is uncertain that he
given the
receiving
for
a stolen motor vehicle in in-
point
stolen at this
knew the truck was
argues
terstate commerce. He
that
the
time;
requisite knowledge is.missing at
the
purchased
time he
the truck it had lost its
Rather,
stage.1
providing
his
it is
interstate character.
time
paperwork
the fraudulent
the second
he then knew was a stolen vehicle
for what
question
of whether stolen
implicates
conspiracy.
him in the
that
goods transported in interstate commerce
ques
in-
interstate character
testified that
retain their
is a
Gillum
jury,
tion of fact for the
Powell v. United
formed at the time of the sale of the truck
710,
(5th Cir.1969),
States,
him that
a stolеn
which
410 F.2d
712
it was
vehicle
possess
on common sense and ad
legitimate
did not
certificate of which is “based
documentary registration.
this ministered on an ad hoc basis.” United
title or
To
(3d
Garber,
1147
Briggs affirmatively responded:
got
626 F.2d
“I’ve
Cir.1980),
101
paperwork.”
agreed
sup-
he
449 U.S.
When
(1981).
time,
The inter
ply
paperwork
the second
he
III. de fendant knew to be stolen. Value is not an In claims, addition to the sufficiency element offense. was free Briggs raises allegations several of trial to introduce evidence of value to the rebut error. findWe no merit to of the any inference government’s created the evi allegations. dence; not, he however, was entitled to an contends the trial court erred instruction on value. in refusing charge jury the regarding the fair market of the 1978 value Interna- argues that the district trial, tional tractоr truck. At court by refusing erred charge jury part provides: 2. pertinent Section 2313 in foreign which constitutes or interstate com- merce, receives, conceals, stores, barters, knowing stolen, Whoever to have same been sells, disposes $5,000 or be fined impris- motor shall not more vehicle or than or aircraft, as, of, moving part years, or which is a oned not more than five or both.
1013
co-conspirator statements to be introduced
“suspicion” and
between
difference
government produc
the fol-
into evidence until
Briggs presented
“knowledge”.
charge:
evidence of a
between Gil-
lowing point for
ed
lum,
During
Briggs.
Kapp’s
tes
the term has
“knowingly”, as
The word
timony,
Kapp’s testimony,
and after Mrs.
these
used from time
time
been
adequate
there
the court ruled that
instructions,
that the act was done
means
produced. Kapp had testified
evidence
intentionally and not be-
voluntarily and
Interna
that he received the
or accident.
of mistake
cause
it,
transported
tional truck from Gillum and
knowledge.
not amount
Suspicion does
it,
sought papers
that he
that he told
gave
jury
judge
Although the trial
“in
part
the truck had been
of an
refused to
“knowledge,” definition
scam”,
Briggs provided
surance
and that
“[sjuspicion does not
charge
jury that
paperwork.
Mrs.
testified
had
knowledge.”
amount
that sometime
the sale of that truck
after
charge, the district
Briggs’
refusing
Briggs, Kapp
the truck was
Under
abuse its discretion.
court did not
stolen,
“hot”, meaning
sup
Briggs was
government must
18 U.S.C. §
get
it. This evidence was
posed to
rid of
prove that
the defendant knew
the court to
sufficient for
conclude
question
was stolen.
vehicle
motor
in a
Briggs’ participation
conspiracy was
suspected but did
that he
testified
probable than
See Id.
more
not.
truck
that the 1978 International
not know
Jannotti,
729 F.2d
United States v.
is entitled
Clearly a defendant
was stolen.
—
denied,
—,
(3d Cir.),
U.S.
cert.
theory of defense
on a
jury instruction
to a
(1984).
against 803(6). hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. charged with and convicted of two counts of the ten count indictment: need not We address this issue because alleging one count part he was of a conspir- the admission of the certificate was harm- acy stolen motor vehicles circumstances; was, error in less these interstate commerce violation of 18 most, duplicative of Howell’s admissible U.S.C. 371 and and the §§ other testimony. alleging the substantive offense of receiv- challenges the district ing a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 refusal tape court’s to admit a recording of U.S.C. 2313. Count the conspiracy § Gillum, a conversation betweеn who at the count, charges that codefendant Shirl tapes time the govern were made awas stole Tractor; a 1977 Peterbilt that code- informant, Kapp. ment Briggs sought Miller, Kapp fendants Robert and Robert tapes introduce the exculpatory Tractor; Lewis stole a 1973 Kenworth knowledge issue of his that the truck Kapp, Miller and Klingler Ronald trans- Briggs’ was stolen. counsel contended the ported Freightliner Tractor; a stolen 1978 tapes co-conspirator were statements ad Klingler and that stole a 1981 missible under Federal Rule of Evidence International Harvester Tractor. 801(d)(2)(E). The district court held that charged was neither implicated with nor tapes they inadmissible because any of thefts. those “against were not offered a party” as is only charge as tо required explicitly for admissibility under *7 Kapp sold a stolen 1978 801(d)(2). International Trac- Rule tor to Briggs and that Briggs, concealed agree with the We district court. There and stored in garage. vehicle is authority proposition no for the sale of the 1978 International to Tractor prosecution “party” is a against whom also the basis of the substan- such evidence can be offered. The rule is against Briggs tive count receiving intended allow for introduction of co-con stolen vehicle. motor spirators’ against statements as evidence majority correctly notes, them as As defendants. It cannot be rela- encompass tionship Briggs’ interpreta buyer stretched of a and seller does not Hackett, tion. See v. establish United States 638 (9th Cir.1980) denied, 1179 goods though F.2d parties cert. 450 еven know of the 1001, U.S. 101 68 goods. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 203 stolen Majority op. nature at (Co-defendant’s (1981). 1010. What is exculpatory hear missing is the element a say inadmissible). statement joint objective Since underlying commit the figured Kapp stated in and its title because he “was As this court charged. offense App. F.2d 253 as as I was.” at 243a. He Cooper, 567 broke v. United States supplying Kapp paperwork (3d Cir.1977), “to convict a defendant denied with- conspiracy, App. Kapp’s there must be truck. at 266a. testi- in a out the participating tending prove that he mony supports Briggs’ story also that some evidence agreement and that he an him He parts. entered into contacted for cab specific un- agreement had knew the testified: in indictment.” charged purpose
lawful Q. you point At some went to Mr. original). (emphasis in you him and told that needed parts for a that correct? truck. Isn’t in a sufficiency of the evidence “The Yes, A. sir. requires close scru conspiracy prosecution Cortwright, 528 v. tiny.” States Q. United And isn’t also true that one of the Cir.1975). (7th As we stated you parts needed is what is called a cab? Allard, 240 F.2d United Well, give me a A. whole truck for (3d Cir.), parts, sir. (1957), ques “The 1 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. you give any money? him Q. Did pieces of evidence is all tion whether No, He mon- A. sir. wouldn’t take defendant, together, taken against pay ey. I offered to him. jury let a enough case to strong amake Q. evening you that went over On the guilty beyond a reasonable him find speak to Mr. about this—Was legal princi general With these doubt.” imagine, junked it a truck. or was it mind, necessary to review it is ples a— Briggs. against presented Yes, sir. A. Briggs is tied The conviction of Q. you you told him You went over testimony witnesses. Shirl of two junked parts truck for to do needed a transported the stolen testified that he To reassemble a truck that need- what? to his resi- from Indiana 1978 International repair? ed Pennsylvania, after Shippenville, dence at Well, parts some just A. needed him pointed out to Jack it had been gotten. already I had the truck that Gillum, key. App. supplied the and Gillum Q. particular what you And didn’t know did not Kapp testified that Gillum at 88a. point. Is that you at that truck wanted vehicle, give any paper or title with words, you didn’t have In other correct? paper- hunt for proceeded that he that he owned? specific mind a truck went to put title to on it. He work or a No, sir. A. eventually up wound people and several exactly Q. you not aware And Briggs. Kapр testified he told with that he owned were the trucks where paper- a truck that he needed that he had that correct? property. Is work, for, get that he had to back work sir, No, sir, correct. yes, that’s A. any. might have Briggs if he —or and asked property. got all over his He has trucks insur- the truck was an that He large proper- Q. very piece He has a scam, it had been burned ance true? ty, in fact. Isn’t that up turn not want it to the owner did “supplied Yes, again. He testified sir. of “a title. consisted paperwork”, which can assume App. at 127a-128a. We your you get car kind of title The same Briggs *8 have found that jury could ownership.” App. whatever, proves that or paperwork, as supplied only the fact at 92a. is not That direct examination. testified on Al- in this transaction. significant fact inoрera- he had an
Briggs testified that un- “it is majority says that though the parts, keeping truck that he was ble the truck was [Briggs] knew that seeking parts, certain him cab Kapp contacted time”, op. at Majority point in at this truck provided Kapp with the that he and Q. there is no evidence whatso- fact When Mr. examined the truck, ever in the record to he did not show knew know it was a stolen truck. Is that true? sup- that the truck was stolen at the time he plied paperwork Kapp’s request. Yes, A. sir. Q. Was this truck an International? Briggs’ connection the truck second with Yes, A. sir. occurred several months later. In the in- Q. you Did tell Mr. Briggs paid when he
terval, Kapp used truck for had several money for this truck it that was a coal, way months to haul which was the stolen truck? living. made his After Gillum returned No, A. sir. Kapp’s truck. Gillum wanted to sell the Aрp. at 130a-131a. 1978 International and asked if he Kapp’s final testimony respect with anybody who interested in knew would be Briggs was to the effect that he told buying Kapp replied it. that “there’s sev- Briggs that the truck was stolen months people trucking eral that’s our area when, after the developed by transaction trucks, they buy used new used.” testimony, other he became concerned App. at 93a. knew that need- investigation about the in this case. He ed truck “his had because GMC went testified: him, up something.” sour on it blowed Q. you Later on called Mr. on Thereafter, App. Kapp telephoned at 98a. phone you you asked him if could buying to see if he was interested in repurchase the truck. Is that true? a truck. testified: Several months later? Q. you spoke When to Mr. A. Yes. phone, did he indicate that he was Q. Approximately long how was that? in buying interested a truck? just you A. I couldn’t tell on the time. Yes, A. sir. Q. Fine. He you. refused to sell it to Q. you you Did tell him that were Isn’t that correct? any particular hurry buy sell the —to Yes, A. sir. truck? Q. you And him at that time for time, your testimony, first it is I A. Just go owner wanted to believe, you told him that this was a back home and if it, he wanted to see stolen truck. there, it was and to talk to the Yes, A. sir. owner. Q. He still didn’t you, sell it back to did Q. you up appointment So did set an he? him to come and see the truck at the No, A. sir. time? Q. you Did advise him to it hide or not I I picked A. believe went down and to run it? up. him get A. told him to rid of it. Q. pay much did he for that truck? How Q. kept it, running though, He didn’t $5,000. A. believe was he? Q. you phone, called him on the When Yes, A. sir. him on you you tell called did him—When Q. you know, As far as he never you it was a phone, did not know stopped running it. Is that true? stolen truck. Isn’t that true? Yes, A. sir. Yes, A. sir. App. at 132a-133a. Q. up go you picked And when only by Briggs’ This is corroborated not truck, that it you not aware see testimony testimony but of Mrs. that true? was a stolen truck. Is Kapp, another witness. Yes, Briggs testified: sir. *9 counts, agreed buy cooperate, seven and Q. eventually offer Did someone you? pled guilty from thereafter to one count of this truck con- cealing a stolen vehicle. he had three or maybe time A. Yes. Some in they been convicted connection with some sto- authorities four months before —the came, someone to len Kapp Mr. sent lumber. either me, call my house or—he didn’t but stealing Gillum admitted to the 1978 In- that he wanted maybe he sent word over Indiana, Kapp ternational vehicle with from thinking or was about buy the truck Kapp after which hauled coal with it for me, off and I told him buying the truck awhile. Gillum testified: International bought I a 1974 [which Q. happened And to it after what Mr. thought Briggs testified that was] Kapp hauling was coal? keep it. I had been I wanted and Kapp I A. Mr. and sold it to Paul time, partic- long hunting that Briggs. it; motor, sell and I didn’t want to ular Q. And when the vehicle was stolen maybe ill wind that there was some and any paper was there work or title with might been stolen the truck have the vehicle? them, and something, I didn’t believe but right going I I was figured was and truck, interested keep my and so I wasn’t understanding my Yes. It was A. selling it at no time. Sonny had a title for it. keep running it after Q. you Did on Objection MR. HEFFERNAN: as to this— understanding was. what running it until it kept right on A. THE COURT: Sustained. so just days or a week or expired a few Q. there a title or you Do know—Was my place. come to the authorities beforе you paper with the vehicle when work App. at 258a-259a. stole it? she over- Kapp also testified that Mrs. No, A. ma’am. September or Octo- heard a conversation Q. you the title work Do know where 1982 between her husband ber of from? for that vehicle came Briggs, about the International ma’am, No, I don’t. said the Kapp which Gillum you? Q. Kapp Mr. Did tell sup- hot and Mr. truck “was App. at 40a. get rid of it.” posed to Yes, he did. THE WITNESS: nothing of this
It is evident Honor, in ac- Your MRS. JORDAN: testimony implicates Briggs in a ruling of the prior Accord- cordance with transport stolen motor vehicles. Court,— Kapp, individual who ing to who was the Briggs, the transaction with handled you Q. Mr. tell about What did was stolen Briggs did not know the truck title work? fortiori, purchased A the time he it. in the con- implicated could not be you tell about Q. did Mr. What the truck which spiracy paper work? transported months before. got title from me that he A. He told govern- The second witness whom Briggs. Mr. the convic- majority rely ment and the App. at 145a-146a. (Jack) Al- Gillum. Briggs was John tion of meetings Gil- between There were two or al- implicated in all though Gillum was day the 1978 lum, Briggs on the Kapp and the sub- most all of the thefts which him. After was sold to International indictment, named he was not
ject of truck, buying a Briggs about however, in contacted had, indicted been He therein. place, transported Briggs to of Indiana on District in the Southern *10 nearby, Q. which was to see the truck. What say make does this title Briggs testified he believed it was a 1974 this vehicle is? rough, that “looked but it International had says A. It it’s an International. type of motor in it that I wanted.” Q. Directing your attention to the back
App. Kapp at 244a. Hе told that the most exhibit, signature of that appears whose $5,000. give App. he would for was at space in the marked for seller? 245a. Kapp’s Before he to look went at Kapp. A. Shirl F. truck, arranged he had to sell one of his Q. And to whom or what was this ve- buyer. seeing trucks to another After hicle sold? truck, Kapp’s arrangements he made get $5,000 buyer check from his and he and A. Excuse me? buyer together went bank Q. To whom was this vehicle sold to? Kapp cash that check. then called Aze, A. It was sold Incorporated, again picked up who came over Knox, R.D. 2. App. and took him back to the truck. at Q. signed Aze, Who on behalf of Incor- 246a. then walked around the porated? truck to make sure that it hadn’t been A. I company president. did as gone dismantled he while and then Apр. at 247a-249a. said it’s deal”. “well testified: The title was into Q. I admitted evidence. Kapp money went to hand Mr. (indicating), and there was a—I found testimony The sole majority which the out later it was a Mr. Gillum there. He affirming states is the Briggs’ basis said, kind of reached in across and he conviction conspiracy appears in the last my money,” “That’s and he snatched it. following three lines of the colloquy from grabbed up He it. itSo ended that I testimony of Gillum: really Kapp put money don’t think Q. you you Now said sold the vehicle to pocket. got think Mr. it. Gillum Briggs? Mr. App. at 247a. also testified: A. That’s correct. Q. you gave you When handed —When Q. you And how much did sell it himto Kapp money, point Mr. at that had he for? you this was a stolen truck? $10,000. A. I think Absolutely A. not. I wouldn’t have Q. pay you Did he ever for the vehicle? bought it if it was a stolen truck. paid $5,000, think, possibly A. He six. Q. you Did Mr. tell Gillum at this time? Q. you? pay And how did he bought A. No. I wouldn’t have it off A. Cash. him either.
Q. you anything Did receive else? A. Yeah. When I made a deal with Mr. Q. you Did ever have face-to-face time, gave title, at this he me a dealings Briggs? with Mr. I looked at it and it said Shirl on it Yes, A. I did. it said International. Q. you What did tell Mr. about Q. you I show what had marked been the vehicle? Defendant’s T you Exhibit and I ask if I told him it was stolen and we had A. you identify can this. paper no work it. copy A. Yes. This is a of the title I Q. What did say? from Mr. time. received ” A. He says, got “I’ve paper work. Q. year say What does this title App. added). (emphasis at 146a-147a is, Briggs? this truck Mr. say testimony It didn’t. It didn’t what. The Gillum’s inis conflict with that year is blank. witness who testi- Q. you asking Sonny Kapp So at that time that fied not told However, about Paul and his use of that even the stolen. the vehicle was International. Is that cоrrect? purchase the mere majority concedes that *11 not to A. That’s would suffice correct. the stolen vehicle to conspirator ve- Briggs Q. make a Sonny Kapp you And didn’t if he ask majority the relies on Gil- Briggs ques- hicles. Instead should tell Paul the about got paper origin ‘I’ve the says, “He tionable of that 1974 Internation- lum’s answer al? work’ ”. Repeat A. that now? However, testimony itself Gillum’s THE reporter COURT: Would the respect to the confusion with some shows (Last question question read the back? the truck. On cross- of the title to status read.) examination, that he conceded when Yes, A. I think he did. Briggs already it had title sold to
truck was it. to truck, wasn’t titled in Q. that Now THE REPORTER: “What were the ex- it, name, was sir? words,
Jack Gillum’s recall, you act if can what you?” said to No, sir. A. THE WITNESS: Of what Mr. Sonny in
Q. tiuck was titled That said to me? correct, Kapp’s Is that sir? name. Q. regards Briggs. With to Mr.
A. That’s correct. A. I asked him if Mr. knew what Q. was sold to Paul when that truck So going on. it. Is already had a title to Briggs, it Q. Kapp say? Sonny And what did correct, that sir? A. “No.” correct. A. That’s Q. you say? did And what in the name of Q. And title was “Well, just let the son of a bitch A. eventually it was Sonny Kapp, and then Okay?” rest. Corporation. Is that transferred to Aze Q. Sonny Kapp say to And what did correct? you? A. I’m not sure. go him?” ought “Think I to tell Well, Q. Briggs? sold to Mr. it was mean, ought “Think I Q. did What right. A. That’s go tell him?” App. at 174a. investigating FBI was A. That the If, Kapp, Briggs and Gillum also tractor. agree, already paperwork there was accom- reply? your Q. Okay, what was International, there was panying the 1978 A. “No.” supply paperwork
no need
191a-198a.
App. at
time. Neither the
nor
second
said in United States
this court
As
plau-
majority
any,
offers
much less a
Cir.1975):
310-11
Kates,
sible, explanation.
however,
keep
that we
imperative,
isIt
Gillum,
Furthermore,
part of
at another
nature of what
mind the essential
acknowledge that
testimony, appears
general
and what
conspiracy is
knowledge until
inculpatory
had no
proven to be.
conspiracy was
particular
bought the vehicle.
substantially after he
“gist” of a
It is well established
He testified:
agreement. However
conspiracy is an
Q.
a comment
you
Did
ever make
may
slight
or circumstantial
Man
still
Sonny Kapp, “Is Old
be, must,
in order to be sufficient
running
International?”
affirmance,
prove
tend to
warrant
form of
entered into some
appellant
informal, with his
agreement, formal or
Yes, I did.
THE WITNESS:
alleged co-conspirators. Similarly,
title,
we
Kapp already
which
had in
have stated that thе
of a conspir-
essence
agreed
name. Gillum
that there was
acy
“unity
purpose”
is a
or “common
paperwork
indeed
accompanying the truck
design.”
when it
Briggs.
was sold to
The mere
testimony by
Gillum that
said “I’ve
(footnotes omitted).
got
paper work,”
is too slender a reed
In considering a contention that the evi-
Briggs’
count,
to sustain
conviction on this
dence was
insufficient
sustain a convic-
on which
was sentenced to serve
tion
conspiracy,
our task is to
review
years
jail.
four
light
evidence in the
most favorable to the
government in
if
if
order
determine
Even
the evidence is
viewed
requisite
implausible
factfinder
agree-
could find the
manner
majority
in which the
*12
beyond
it,
ment
a reasonable
yet
doubt. See views
there is
disturbing
another
Cooper,
United States v.
567 F.2d at
asрect
majority’s analysis.
to the
Neither
has,
fact,
When the evidence
in
been inade-
government
majority
nor the
contends
quate, we have not hesitated to overturn
Briggs
participated
that
knew of or
in the
the conviction. See United States v. Coo-
transport
actual
of the 1978 International.
Kates,
per, supra;
supra;
United States v.
Concededly, person
knowingly sup-
a
who
Cavalcante,
United States v. De
440 F.2d plies paperwork to enable those who have
(3d Cir.1971).
1272-75
transported a stolen truck in interstate
may
commerce to use it or sell it
be found
This trial involved a number of transac-
purpose
to have evinced a common
with the
regarding
tions
other defendants and ve-
conspirators
other
thereby joined
hicles with which
was not involved.
conspiracy. Thus,
any
if there had been
purchase
His involvement
of a
with
jury
evidence from which the
could have
enough
stolen 1978 International is not
found that
the truck was sto-
knew
conspiracy
transport
convict
sto-
len
provided
paper-
the first time he
government
len vehicles. The
did not
work,
using
which assisted
charge Briggs
conspiracy
with
a
receive
truck or which
would have assisted
Thus,
stolen vehicle.
even if it could have
it,
selling Briggs’
and Gillum in
conviction
proven
conspiracy,
that unlawful
it was not
conspiracy
upheld.
for
should be
charged.
the crime which it
See United
Cavalcante,
States v. De
1021 see 769 majority opinion of the Court For by the circuits rule, repudiated now dence” (4 Cir.1985). 221 F.2d Ma it, v. United States spawned see Cir.), (5th 1382 latesta, F.2d 590 WINTER, Judge, L. Chief HARRISON S.Ct. 440 U.S. dissenting: concurring and v. (1979); Sil United States L.Ed.2d Cir.1985), (9th verman, Judge I and II of Butz- cоncur Parts I As majority. dissent, however, upon by the opinion. relied from not ner’s stated, it preserved would for previously Clark has neither court has Part III. charge jury nor claim that appellate pressed error to review reversible be to a defendant to a trial. Since his is participating entitled new may he is connect evidence”, case, rather therefore exceptional think by “slight not an judgment reverse the the connection should proving that we by than remanding the case court without See United district doubt. a reasonable beyond new of the motion for 253. More reconsideration Cooper, 567 F.2d v. States trial. explained in United recently, we n. 4 Cir.
Samuels, 741 F.2d I. rule does 1984), “slight evidence” plaintiff, Clark jury ultimate bur found for government’s After lessen not notwithstanding guilt judgment be proving the defеndant’s moved den *13 Nonetheless, for a new or in the alternative trial. doubt. verdict yond a reasonable grounds attempt separate assigned nine explain or even Clark majority fails to motion, intro six of which were meager support of his how explain of which related any factually stan and three under based suffices duced factually His evidentiary trial. satisfy the conduct of the of review to dard that there either support grounds a conviction were required to based standard given fact or that prove “no evidence” case. in a criminal given fact. prove” a He “failed to plaintiff the verdict was asserted that nowhere evidence with weight of the against aspect of the case. regard factual judgment motion granting Clark’s fully the n.o.v., discussed the district court support sufficiency of the evidence 50(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Pursuant verdict. WHALEN, Appellant, conditional made a Richard A. court also district requested, relief the alternate ruling on saying: BOARD OF COUNTY ROANOKE The the con- error in perceives no court The Clark, SUPERVISORS; In F. William hence, trial, original new of the duct Raymond Eugene dividually; Robert in the event not be trial would warranted son, Individually; Appellees. appeals successfully Mr. Whalen of defendant favor judgment in court’s No. 83-2095. jury’s verdict. notwithstanding the Appeals, United States Court mind, demonstrat- court my district To Circuit. Fourth motion be Clark’s that it understood ed entirely assertion on the based 1984. Argued Oct. support legally insufficient to evidence was Aug. Decided procedural and that the verdict there trial. in the conduct errors there indicate court did not district weight of any issue about