U.S. v. Barrett

6 Citing cases

  1. Stevenson v. Union Pacific R. Co.

    354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004)   Cited 234 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that without relevant evidence related to missing information, "the jury is deprived of sufficient information on which to base a rational decision of whether to apply the adverse inference"

    "It is for the jury to decide who to believe and who not to believe." United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir. 1996). "Determining the credibility of a witness is the jury's province, whether the witness is lay or expert."

  2. U.S. v. Mora-Higuera

    269 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2001)   Cited 39 times
    Explaining that under Terry, "an investigative stop of a vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the police have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle or its occupants" have committed a traffic violation or are otherwise "involved in criminal activity"

    First, Botello drove Mora-Higuera to and from the drug buy of December 20th and was present at the second controlled buy on December 28th. Second, two of his alleged co-conspirators testified that he was a knowing participant in the drug ring, allowing his house to be used as part of the conspiracy and transporting money into Mexico. Third, drug buy money was found in Botello's residence, the majority in the soles of shoes that belonged to him. Cf. United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that testimony of three alleged co-conspirators was enough to convict defendant of conspiracy even where there was contradictory testimony and no physical evidence). III.

  3. United States v. Howard

    169 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1999)

    We will reverse the district court's denial of Howard's motion for judgment of acquittal only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accepting as established all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, no reasonable jury could have found Howard guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ireland, 62 F.3d 227, 230 (8th Cir. 1995). The government introduced overwhelming evidence that Howard aided and abetted the possession of ephedrine with intent to produce methamphetamine.

  4. United States v. Correa

    167 F.3d 414 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming conviction for distribution and conspiracy when video tape showed hand-to-hand sale of drugs to an undercover officer

    The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir. 1996). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient evidence to convict Correa of the drug deal on May 9, 1997, and of conspiracy.

  5. United States v. Gonzales

    90 F.3d 1363 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 114 times
    Upholding willful blindness instruction where the defendants, who were charged with laundering drug money, failed to inquire about the source of the money and used incorrect names and addresses on documents when wiring money

    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict, "we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accept as established all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict." United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir. 1996). We then uphold the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence.

  6. United States v. Jefferson

    Case No. 10-CR-00045-NKL (W.D. Mo. Nov. 14, 2011)

    As the Corredors both testified against Jefferson at trial, their testimony was admissible to prove Jefferson's participation in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. See United States v. Barrett, 74 F.3d 167, 168 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that testimony of multiple alleged co-conspirators was sufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy even when there was contradictory testimony and no physical evidence). Regarding the credibility of the Corredors' testimony, Jefferson does not provide any evidence from the trial which undercuts the critical testimony of Alejandro Corredor, who detailed Jefferson's role in the cocaine distribution conspiracy, and provided dates, times and quantities of drugs supplied to and sold by Jefferson as a part of this conspiracy.