In the Courts

In United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2006), the Eighth Circuit clarified the proper standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in conspiracy cases, rejecting the 'slight evidence' rule and holding that the government must offer enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's connection to the conspiracy.

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit various drug-related offenses. An Eighth Circuit panel affirmed his conviction noting that, although the evidence connecting him to the conspiracy was 'razor-thin,' once the existence of a conspiracy is established only 'slight evidence' of the connection between a particular defendant and the established conspiracy is required to support conviction. United States v. Lopez, 414 F.3d 954, 959 (8th Cir. 2005). Upon en banc review, the Eighth Circuit vacated that portion of the panel's decision. The Court noted that the 'slight evidence rule,' in force in the Eighth Circuit for 70 years, had been frequently criticized and at times misinterpreted. While emphasizing that the slight-evidence rule was never intended to relieve the government of its burden of proving all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acknowledged that the language of the rule could suggest otherwise and therefore rejected its future use.