United States v. Daniel Richard Esparza

Richard Daniel Esparza appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and his conviction by a jury on one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(B); and four counts of transporting an illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Esparza contends that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was insufficient to support his convictions for conspiracy and transporting of illegal aliens. We agree and reverse.

BACKGROUND

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Esparza’s convictions, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and determine whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Esparza was guilty of each count charged. See United States v. Toomey, 764 F.2d 678, 680 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1069 , 106 S.Ct. 828 , 88 L.Ed.2d 799 (1986). In addressing this question, the evidence viewed most favorably to the government shows that: Border patrol agents stopped a convoy that included a furniture moving van and a…

concurring separately:

I agree that under our law appellant was not proven to be other than an innocent bystander beyond a reasonable doubt. However, were I a bookmaker, I would say that the odds on his not being an innocent bystander are at least five to one. It is not the odds, however, that prevent upholding appellant’s convictions. Rather, it is the absence of any proof that appellant did anything other than being there. That deficiency in the proof must preclude conviction of participating in the conspiracy if the “innocent bystander” defense is to have vitality.

*1394 Thus, although we say that the jury did not evaluate the proof properly, I submit that our reversal rests on a legal principle, viz., mere presence of an accused, in the absence of any other evidence linking the accused to the crime charged, precludes conviction of the accused of that crime. If this were not the true basis of our decision in this case, I would vote to affirm.

876 F.2d 1390 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Richard ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-5248. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 7, 1989. * Decided May 31, 1989. Elizabeth A. Barranco, Sheela, Barranco & Sheela, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Carol C. Lam, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before SNEED, FARRIS and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Richard Daniel Esparza appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and his conviction by a jury on one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324 (a)(1)(B); and four counts of transporting an illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324 (a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 . Esparza contends that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was insufficient to support his convictions for conspiracy and transporting of illegal aliens. We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND 2 In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Esparza's…