United States v. Clark
2014 WL 184995, 740 F. 3d 808, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 938 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence is insufficient to support a criminal conviction if the prosecution's theory of how the crime occurred is so exceedingly remote and improbable that no rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
Facts:
- Police received a 911 call reporting that armed men had left a bar in a white Jeep Cherokee.
- Officers located the Jeep and found Jeremiah K. Clark in the driver's seat along with three other men.
- After finding a firearm under the driver's seat, police arrested Clark.
- An officer performed a pat-down search of Clark for weapons before placing him in a police cruiser.
- Clark was placed alone in the rear of the cruiser with his hands handcuffed behind his back.
- The drive from the scene of the arrest to the police station took approximately one minute.
- After Clark was removed from the vehicle, an officer lifted the rear seat cushion and found a quantity of crack cocaine in the crevice between the seat cushion and the seat back.
- The officer testified that he had inspected this area before his shift and it was empty, and that Clark was the only person to have occupied the back seat that evening.
- No traces of cocaine were observed on Clark's hands or clothing, and no container, such as a glassine envelope, was ever found.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeremiah K. Clark was tried by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts: felon in possession of a firearm (Count I) and possession of a controlled substance (Count II).
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction against Clark on both counts.
- Clark appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on Count I in a separate summary order and is now considering the appeal of Count II.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to permit a jury to reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed and hid a quantity of crack cocaine in a police car while his hands were handcuffed behind his back?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jon O. Newman
No. The evidence presented is not sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While appellate courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, they have a constitutional obligation to ensure the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is met. The prosecution's theory—that Clark, with his hands securely handcuffed behind his back, retrieved a substantial quantity of loose crack cocaine from his person and wedged it into a hidden space in the car seat during a one-minute ride, all without leaving any trace of powder on his person or clothing—taxes credulity. The court found this series of events so 'exceedingly remote' that no reasonable jury could conclude it happened beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of any packaging for the drugs further diminishes the plausibility of the government's case to a 'virtual impossibility'.
Dissenting - Judge Droney
Yes. A rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark possessed the cocaine. The jury is responsible for weighing evidence and credibility, and a reviewing court should only overturn a verdict if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with it. The jury could have reasonably concluded that the initial pat-down, which was for weapons in a dangerous situation, simply missed the drugs. Clark was alone in the car for five to ten minutes, not just the one-minute ride, providing a greater opportunity to hide the cocaine. While difficult, it was not impossible for a handcuffed person to accomplish this. The jury was entitled to believe Deputy Giamberdino's testimony that the car was clean before Clark entered and that Clark was the only one with access, making him the only possible source of the cocaine.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the sufficiency of the evidence standard established in Jackson v. Virginia. It demonstrates that while the standard is highly deferential to the jury, there is a limit where the prosecution's theory becomes so improbable that it crosses the line from reasonable inference to pure speculation. The decision reinforces the appellate courts' role as a constitutional check, ensuring that the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard is not diluted. This precedent will be valuable for defendants challenging convictions based on highly circumstantial and physically implausible evidence.
