## Facts

- Corey Pasley worked as a security guard at the Walnut Lane Apartments in Philadelphia and knew details about office security, cash storage, and that the office manager, Barbara Jablokov, carried a handgun.
- On November 1, 2010, Pasley arrived early, unlocked the office door, and shortly thereafter Amos Singleton entered the office armed with a gun.
- Singleton shot Jablokov in the face and stole a handgun and about $3,500.
- During the robbery, Pasley did not attempt to stop Singleton and took actions the jury could view as assisting the robbery, including attempting to prevent Jablokov from escaping.
- At trial, the government introduced surveillance footage of the incident; the admitted exhibit was a copy of the video transferred to a thumb drive rather than the original recording.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Pasley’s convictions for conspiracy and robbery, given his claim that he did not knowingly agree to or participate in the robbery.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported Pasley’s conviction for aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), including whether he had advance knowledge of the firearm and intended to facilitate the armed offense.
3. Whether the district court erred under the Federal Rules of Evidence by admitting a duplicate of the surveillance video rather than requiring the original.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on all counts.
- The court held that the evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Pasley conspired to commit and participated in the robbery.
- The court held that the evidence was sufficient for § 924(c) aiding and abetting because the jury could infer advance knowledge of the gun and intent to facilitate the armed robbery, including from Pasley’s continued assistance after the gun was displayed and used.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the copied surveillance video because it was authenticated and the rules permitted a duplicate absent a genuine authenticity dispute or unfairness.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 29 sufficiency challenge, a conviction stands if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational juror could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Conspiracy and participation may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s insider access or knowledge and conduct before and during the offense from which agreement and knowing assistance may reasonably be inferred.
- To aid and abet a § 924(c) offense, the government must prove the defendant actively participated in the predicate crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun, and continued participation after learning of the gun may support an inference of intent to facilitate.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 1002–1004, a duplicate recording is generally admissible to prove content unless there is a genuine question about authenticity or admission would be unfair; authentication may be established by testimony that the duplicate fairly and accurately depicts the recorded events.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld Pasley’s convictions and sentence, finding that his access, knowledge, and conduct provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of conspiratorial agreement and active assistance in an armed robbery, and that admission of an authenticated duplicate surveillance video did not violate the best-evidence rule.


United States v. Pasley, 629 F. App’x 378 (3d Cir. 2015)