But this was not a “hub-and-spoke conspiracy,” where “one core figure supplies drugs to multiple participants.” United States v. Niemi , 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir. 2009). This, rather, was a chain conspiracy:
To begin, "[w]hether evidence shows one or many conspiracies is a question of fact for the jury and is reviewed only for sufficiency of the evidence." United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722, 732 (1st Cir. 1991) ). And a motion for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency grounds is, of course, subject to de novo review.
Because each coconspirator's success "depend[ed] on the continued existence and health of the drug distribution organization as a whole," the jury safely could conclude that coconspirators across projects were interdependent. United States v. Niemi , 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir. 2009). Last—but not least—the evidence supported a finding that the participants overlapped.
Indeed, "the prosecution may comment on the lack of evidence for a defense theory." United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702, 730 (1st Cir. 2014) (finding no Fifth Amendment violation where prosecutor noted there was "no evidence at all" to support defense theory), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2743, 189 L.Ed.2d 777 (2014) ; accord United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 128–29 (1st Cir. 2009) (no error where prosecutor posited that defense counsel could not offer alternate explanation for use of code words in recorded conversation); United States v. Sánchez–Berríos, 424 F.3d 65, 73 (1st Cir. 2005) ("The prosecutor's description of the defense as a ‘self serving absurdity,’ while not flattering, was fair argument" (citation omitted)); United States v. Bennett, 75 F.3d 40, 46–47 (1st Cir. 1996) (no error in calling defense theory a "diversion" that "doesn't pass the laugh test"). Upon review of the statements, we cannot find Taylor's view—that the prosecutor was commenting on Taylor's failure to testify or produce evidence—is the only, or even a natural reading of the prosecutor's statements.
Whether the evidence evinces one or multiple conspiracies “is a question of fact for the jury and is reviewed only for the sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir.2009). With the jury properly instructed, as here, on the need to determine whether the defendants were guilty of the charged conspiracy, the guilty verdict “can be seen as an effective rejection of the multiple conspiracy theory.”
Whether the evidence evinces one or multiple conspiracies "is a question of fact for the jury and is reviewed only for the sufficiency of the evidence." United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir. 2009). With the jury properly instructed, as here, on the need to determine whether the defendants were guilty of the charged conspiracy, the guilty verdict "can be seen as an effective rejection of the multiple conspiracy theory."
An instruction like this has survived similar challenges. See United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 126–27 (1st Cir.2009); United States v. Balthazard, 360 F.3d 309, 316 (1st Cir.2004). The instruction, as given, conveyed the substance of Mullins's defense.
The question of whether the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated the existence of one or multiple conspiracies “is a question of fact for the jury and is reviewed only for sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir.2009). In conducting our inquiry, we must look at the evidence presented at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Whether the evidence in this case shows that Franco–Santiago joined a broader conspiracy to commit a series of robberies is a question of fact reviewed for sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir.2009). He preserved the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for the charged Hobbs Act conspiracy, so we review the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, “view[ing] the evidence, both direct and circumstantial—and including all plausible inferences drawn therefrom—in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
Here, to find the single conspiracy charged, the jury had to infer from the acts and statements of the witnesses a single ongoing “agreement” that embraced Jones and other co-conspirators. It would be enough, under the criteria developed by the courts, United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir.2009), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1912, 176 L.Ed.2d 385 (2010), for the jury to find that the local co-conspirators were aware generally that a common, large scale conspiracy existed with Jones at the center, that its operation depended on the co-operation of all, and that the co-conspirators knowingly associated with and adhered to it. Some of the evidence pointed to by the government—for example, that the modus operandi for the various transactions was similar—is as consistent with a multiple conspiracy story as with a single conspiracy; and Jones' brief ably argues that in a small community the fact that the alleged co-conspirators tended to know each other does not prove a single conspiracy.