The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Henry Johnson's:
(1) Post-Trial Motions (d/e 118), (2) Addendum to Post-Trial Motions (d/e 122), and (3) Second Addendum to Post-Trial Motions (d/e 133), and the Government's Memorandum of Law Regarding Entry of Judgment on Jury Verdicts (d/e 120). On July 7, 2005, a jury returned verdicts of guilty on each of the ten counts charged in the Second Superseding Indictment in this case (d/e 41), as follows: Count 1: Continuing Criminal Enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), and 856(a)(2);
Count 2: Use of Telephone to Facilitate a Drug Offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b);
Count 3: Use of Telephone to Facilitate a Drug Offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b);
Count 4: Use of Telephone to Facilitate a Drug Offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b);
Count 5: Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846;
Count 6: Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(2) and 841(b)(1)(A);
Count 7: Conspiracy to Maintain Drug-Involved Premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2);
Count 8: Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2);
Count 9: Distribution of Marijuana, in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D); and Count 10: Aiding and Abetting the Distribution of "Crack" Cocaine, in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a), 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Defendant Johnson raises numerous points in his Motions and Addenda. He asks the Court to reverse all of its rulings denying any and all of Defendant's Motions and objections, and specifically requests that the Court reverse its decisions on his Pretrial Motions (d/e 63) which document contained the following motions: (1) Motion for Bill of Particulars; (2) Motion to Bar Evidence Under Criminal Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) Motion to Suppress Evidence; (4) Motion to Reconsider Gang Affiliation;
(5) Motion for Reconsideration of Second Superseding Indictment Due to Improperly Impaneled Grand Jury; and (6) Motion to Join Counts 5 and 6 of the Second Superseding Indictment as One Offense; and he also specifically asks the Court to reverse the denial of his Oral Motion to Sever Count 9 of the Second Superseding Indictment, denied on June 2, 2005. The Court remains of the opinion that its ruling on Johnson's Motions and objections were correct at the time they were made, for the reasons stated of record or for the reasons stated in written decisions. The Court therefore denies this request and will not reverse any of its pretrial or trial rulings which denied the Defendant's Motions and objections, including those specifically listed.
The Defendant next moves the Court to set aside the verdicts arguing that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant on any of the charges. The Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's evidence, and at the close of all evidence at trial, for the reason that the evidence was insufficient. The Court denied those motions for the reasons stated of record at that time. The Court continues to believe that those reasons were correct and denies this portion of Johnson's Motions for the same reasons.
Johnson argues additionally that the evidence was insufficient because there was a lack of physical evidence in the Government's case in chief, and a lack of corroboration of the testimony of the Government's witnesses. In this case, the Government relied on testimony of numerous individuals involved in the criminal activity with Johnson. These individuals testified from personal knowledge that Johnson engaged in the illegal activity charged in the Second Superseding Indictment. The Government is not required to corroborate this testimony with physical evidence or testimony of others not involved in the criminal activity. See United States v. Ofcky, 237 F.3d 904, 909 (7th Cir. 2001) ("It ...