Richard W. Bowler v. United States

Appellant, convicted on two counts of a six count indictment, complains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the ver diet. He argues that his motion for acquittal made at the time the Government rested its case in chief should have been granted and that, at least, his second motion made at the conclusion of all the evidence should have been granted.

Appellant begins his argument by asserting that the evidence in its entirety discloses more than reasonable doubt as to appellant’s commission of the crime charged, because it appears that a greater quantum of the evidence supports innocence rather than guilt. It is appellant’s theory that the evidence was purely circumstantial and did not exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

Appellant’s conclusion that the evidence was purely circumstantial is erroneous. It is, in the main, direct. In any event, this court applies no special rule to review circumstantial evidence on appeal. Elwert v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 928 . We will not invade the province of the jury by attempting to determine where the weight of the evidence lies. The jury was convinced, as shown by their verdict, that the evidence adduced demonstrated…