United States v. Fitz - 317 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2003)

Rule:

In a conspiracy case, the government must prove there was a conspiracy with an illegal purpose, that the defendant was aware of the conspiracy, and that he knowingly became a part of it. Moreover, there must be evidence that the defendant entered into an agreement with at least one other person and that the agreement had as its objective a violation of law. It is not necessary to prove an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy. The conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence and may be implied by the surrounding circumstances or by inference from the actions of the parties. Once the government establishes the existence of a drug conspiracy, only slight evidence linking the defendant to the conspiracy is required to prove the defendant's involvement and support the conviction.

Facts:

A confidential informant reported that he could purchase large quantities of methamphetamine from an individual and arranged to purchase methamphetamine from an individual named Jorge, later identified as Jorge Preciado. The informant met Preciado and Edwardo Flores Fitz, also known as Victor Manuel Crespo-Garcia, in a parking lot. As Fitz and Preciado were leaving the parking lot, they were arrested. A man who waited for Fitz and Preciado in a truck was also taken into custody. Four packages that contained approximately 10 pounds of methamphetamine were found hidden in the truck's gas tank. After a trial by jury, Fitz was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of the same, and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 188 months imprisonment. Fitz raised two issues on appeal to this court: first, that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts, and second, that the district court improperly denied his request for a downward departure pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2. 

Issue:

Was Fitz’ conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of the same proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court found that the facts cast into serious doubt whether Fitz knowingly participated in the conspiracy, as the informant never talked to Fitz, there was no evidence in the record to indicate that Fitz knew there were drugs in the truck's gas tank, and the government failed to call the informant as a witness even though the informant was available and known only to the government. Thus, while the government could prove that a conspiracy existed between the individual and the driver of the truck, the government failed to prove that Fitz was aware of the conspiracy or that Fitz knowingly agreed to join the conspiracy.