Facts
- Federal agents designed a reverse-sting operation to lure robbery crews into agreeing to rob a fictitious cocaine “stash house.”
- Agents asked a confidential informant (CI) whether he knew anyone who might be interested in such a robbery; the CI contacted Marcus Corson about a “business opportunity.”
- Marcus arranged a meeting at Oscar Alvarez’s house, where the CI (wearing a wire) explained that he did security work for “Loquito,” supposedly connected to a Mexican drug cartel; in fact, Loquito was an undercover agent.
- The CI stated that 15–20 kilograms of cocaine would be delivered to the stash house, but Loquito would learn the location only about an hour before and would then call the CI with the address.
- Marcus asked whether guards at the stash house would be armed. The CI said they probably would be, and Marcus said he would not hesitate to kill them if needed.
- Marcus indicated that he, his brother Aaron Corson, and Alvarez were all involved and that the three had committed robberies together before.
- The next day, Marcus, Aaron, and Alvarez met with the CI and Loquito. In recorded conversations, the men repeatedly confirmed they were “in” and discussed logistics for the robbery and how they would handle the cocaine after taking it.
- The group picked a staging location where they would meet and wait for Loquito’s call with the stash-house location.
- On the day set for the robbery, the three defendants arrived at the staging location in Marcus’s car. The CI and Loquito were already there, and the CI got into Marcus’s car.
- Marcus complained that Loquito had parked too conspicuously and drove around, saying he wanted to see whether they were being followed.
- Aaron asked whether the CI was armed, and the CI confirmed he had a gun. The defendants waited for Loquito’s call.
- After Loquito called the CI, the CI got back into Loquito’s car. The three defendants drove away and never returned, and the sting ended without any attempted robbery.
- Police searched the defendants’ residences and found minimal physical evidence, including a baggie of bullets at one location.
- The government indicted Marcus Corson, Aaron Corson, and Oscar Alvarez for conspiracy to rob a stash house affecting commerce and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. A jury convicted all three; Aaron later withdrew his appeal.
- Marcus Corson and Oscar Alvarez appealed their convictions on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds, and Marcus also challenged his sentence.
Issues
- Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Marcus Corson and Oscar Alvarez knowingly joined a conspiracy to rob a drug stash house affecting commerce, even though the stash house was fictitious and no robbery occurred.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Marcus Corson and Oscar Alvarez knowingly joined a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, based on the planned theft and later sale of the cocaine described in the sting.
- Whether the district court properly sentenced Marcus Corson using the cocaine quantity represented in the sting (15–20 kilograms), despite the fact that no drugs actually existed.
Decision
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Marcus Corson’s and Oscar Alvarez’s convictions on both conspiracy counts, holding that the recorded conversations, repeated confirmations of participation, planning discussions, and conduct at the staging location supported the jury’s finding of an agreement and intent.
- The court rejected the argument that the nonexistence of the stash house or drugs defeated conspiracy liability; what mattered was the defendants’ agreement and intent to commit the offenses as proposed.
- The court affirmed Marcus Corson’s sentence, concluding that using the represented drug quantity for guideline purposes was proper in this sting context when the evidence supported that Corson agreed to participate in a plan involving that amount.
Legal Principles
- A conspiracy offense focuses on the defendants’ agreement and intent to commit an unlawful act; completion of the planned substantive offense is not required.
- Factual impossibility (such as a fictitious stash house or sham drugs in a government sting) does not bar conspiracy convictions when the defendants agreed to commit the crimes as described.
- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and will affirm if any rational jury could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Recorded statements, coordinated planning, repeated assurances of commitment, and actions consistent with preparation (such as meeting at a staging point and checking for surveillance) can support an inference that defendants knowingly joined a conspiracy.
- In sham-drug sting cases, sentencing may be based on the quantity the defendants agreed and intended to steal or distribute, even if the drugs were not real.
Conclusion
United States v. Corson upheld conspiracy convictions arising from a fictitious stash-house robbery sting, concluding that the defendants’ recorded statements, planning, and preparatory conduct permitted a jury to find an agreement to rob and to distribute the cocaine described by the undercover operation, and it also affirmed a sentence that relied on the agreed-upon drug quantity even though the drugs did not exist.