Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 6/3/2015

United States v. James Dickerson

Citations

  • 789 F.3d 60
  • 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9347

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that the fact the seller had no interest in what the buyer did with the drugs he purchased and that he viewed the buyer only as a customer vitiated the inference of an agreement to redistribute
  • “[W]e must . . . defer[] to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility.” (citation omitted)
  • “[A] defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden, as the standard of review is exceedingly deferential.” (quoting United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 62 (2d Cir. 2012))
  • “[W]e must . . . credit[] every inference that could have been drawn in the [g]overnment’s favor, and defer[] to the jury’s . . . assessment of the weight of the evidence.” (citation omitted)
  • “[A] good customer— even a very good customer — of a drug organization may still be just a customer, not a co-conspirator, if the evidence cannot support an inference of mutual dependency or a common stake.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Winter, Jacobs, Parker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. James Dickerson

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.