Source: cases/21usc846/f3d-934-1251-hawkins.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1251_01/index.html
We find no merit to Hawkins's assertions that the evidence admitted at trial was not sufficient to support his convictions because a reasonable trier of fact certainly could have found him guilty given the evidence presented.
But because Agent Russell's testimony-which constituted the majority of the evidence against Hawkins as to all three counts-was admitted in error, we remand for a new trial.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/934/1251-01 name United States v. Hawkins cite 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit date 2019-08-20 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1251_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl sha1=87da056ec7741f6f9665ad53c61219d64f4d25eb chars=48604 law 21usc846 role applied posture Multi-count drug prosecution; §846 appears in the indictment alongside attempt and §841 counts result remanded element agreement : satisfied [law] scope procedural party Hawkins count Count One conspiracy variant retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony fact @1483..1685 [supports] | Through the intercepted conversations, the agents identified Carlos Ware as Jackson's cocaine supplier, McCree and Hawkins as distributors for Ware, and others who played various roles in the operation. held @45809..46034 | We find no merit to Hawkins's assertions that the evidence admitted at trial was not sufficient to support his convictions because a reasonable trier of fact certainly could have found him guilty given the evidence presented. held @46035..46208 | But because Agent Russell's testimony-which constituted the majority of the evidence against Hawkins as to all three counts-was admitted in error, we remand for a new trial. gloss The court rejects a sufficiency challenge using all admitted evidence but vacates the conviction for improper case-agent testimony. Procedural scope excludes this retrial-permitting conclusion from final merits-instance counts. misfit Sufficiency and evidentiary admissibility point in different directions. This is an expressly scoped positive legal-sufficiency conclusion despite a vacated conviction, not an unqualified current guilty finding. misfit Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government, not the defendant-appellant; remanded and mixed retain unresolved or split dispositions.