## Facts

- Police responded to a 911 report involving a group of men in a white Jeep Cherokee; officers found Jeremiah K. Clark and others in the vehicle, discovered a firearm, and arrested Clark.
- Clark was charged and convicted after jury trial of (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm and (2) possessing crack cocaine; the appeal addressed only the drug-possession conviction.
- Before transport, an officer conducted a patdown of Clark’s waist, pockets, pant legs, and coat for weapons and found nothing.
- Clark was placed alone in the rear of a patrol car, handcuffed behind his back with a very short cuff link (about one to one-and-one-half inches).
- An officer checked the rear seat area before Clark entered and reported it was “clean.”
- The drive to the station lasted about one minute.
- After Clark exited the car at the station, an officer checked the rear seat again and found a bag of crack cocaine wedged under the seat; cocaine powder (“dust”) was visible on the seat.
- Officers then searched Clark at the station and found no cocaine on his person, and no cocaine dust had been observed on his clothing before the seat search.
- The government argued the timing and Clark’s sole occupancy permitted the inference that he possessed the crack cocaine and placed or dropped it under the seat during transport.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark knowingly possessed the crack cocaine found wedged under the patrol-car seat.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed Clark’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Count II) for insufficient evidence and remanded.
- The court concluded the verdict depended on speculative inferences rather than reasonable ones grounded in the trial evidence.
- The court noted Clark’s firearm conviction (Count I) was addressed separately and affirmed in a separate disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction may be sustained only if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the government’s favor, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence can prove guilt, but the inference chain must be reasonable; a verdict cannot rest on conjecture.
- Proof of knowing possession (actual or constructive) requires evidence connecting the defendant to the contraband beyond mere proximity or temporary presence.
- A “clean car plus sole occupant” theory does not, without more, establish possession where alternative explanations and practical constraints make the government’s inference chain speculative.

## Conclusion

The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark possessed the crack cocaine found under the patrol-car seat because the prosecution’s theory required the jury to speculate—particularly given the brief transport, restrictive handcuffs, the wedged placement and spillage, and the absence of drugs or residue on Clark when searched.


United States v. Clark, 740 F.3d 808 (2d Cir. 2014)