"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.