United States v. James Dickerson

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).