United States v. David Marshall

Eighth Circuit

United States v. David Marshall

922 F.2d 479, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22412, 1990 WL 213077

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 31, 1990

Docket90-2509

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 922 F.2d 479 (United States v. David Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. David Marshall, 922 F.2d 479, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22412, 1990 WL 213077 (8th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

David Marshall appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. A jury found Marshall guilty of one count of conspiring with three others to use stolen credit cards to obtain cash advances and services. Marshall claims that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s verdict.

In reviewing a jury conviction, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). We must sustain the verdict if substantial evidence in the record supports it. United States v. Snelling, 862 F.2d 150, 153 (8th Cir.1988).

Marshall concedes that the government introduced sufficient evidence of the existence of the conspiracy. He contends that the evidence failed to link him with the conspiracy, however, because only one witness, co-conspirator Donna Wilhite, testified that he participated in the conspiracy. Marshall claims that Wilhite’s credibility is inherently suspect because she testified against him pursuant to a plea bargain.

Witness credibility is a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Big Crow, 898 F.2d 1326, 1329 (8th Cir.1990). Moreover, circumstantial evidence corroborated Wilhite’s testimony regarding Marshall’s involvement in the conspiracy. Bank surveillance photographs of Wilhite using the stolen credit cards showed Marshall standing nearby. A Delta Airlines employee identified Marshall as having been present when one of the stolen credit cards was used to purchase four plane tickets to Salt Lake City. At the time of Marshall’s arrest the next day in Salt Lake City, he was driving a car that had been rented with one of the stolen credit cards and was carrying $7,100 in cash. A search of Marshall’s luggage revealed a Polaroid camera and other items used to make false identification cards.

We conclude that the evidence at trial adequately supported the jury’s verdict. *480 Accordingly, we affirm Marshall’s conviction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

David Marshall appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. A jury found Marshall guilty of one count of conspiring with three others to use stolen credit cards to obtain cash advances and services. Marshall claims that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s verdict.

In reviewing a jury conviction, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). We must sustain the verdict if substantial evidence in the record supports it. United States v. Snelling, 862 F.2d 150, 153 (8th Cir.1988).

Marshall concedes that the government introduced sufficient evidence of the existence of the conspiracy. He contends that the evidence failed to link him with the conspiracy, however, because only one witness, co-conspirator Donna Wilhite, testified that he participated in the conspiracy. Marshall claims that Wilhite’s credibility is inherently suspect because she testified against him pursuant to a plea bargain.

Witness credibility is a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Big Crow, 898 F.2d 1326, 1329 (8th Cir.1990). Moreover, circumstantial evidence corroborated Wilhite’s testimony regarding Marshall’s involvement in the conspiracy. Bank surveillance photographs of Wilhite using the stolen credit cards showed Marshall standing nearby. A Delta Airlines employee identified Marshall as having been present when one of the stolen credit cards was used to purchase four plane tickets to Salt Lake City. At the time of Marshall’s arrest the next day in Salt Lake City, he was driving a car that had been rented with one of the stolen credit cards and was carrying $7,100 in cash. A search of Marshall’s luggage revealed a Polaroid camera and other items used to make false identification cards.

We conclude that the evidence at trial adequately supported the jury’s verdict. *480 Accordingly, we affirm Marshall’s conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 F.2d 479, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22412, 1990 WL 213077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-marshall-ca8-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack