Page 56 - March April 2020 TPA

Anderson attempted to follow them, but was soon Jordan argues that the evidence is insufficient to
cut off by unmarked police vehicles and placed support a finding of guilt because the
under arrest. Government’s case impermissibly “pile[d]
Loring testified that she met Jordan, also known as inference upon inference” and there was no DNA
Wacko, on Instagram about a week before the or fingerprint evidence to link Jordan to the crimes.
robbery when he messaged her about the His argument is unavailing. As the Government
opportunity to make quick money. They met a notes, the testimony of Anderson and Loring alone
couple of times over that week, and Jordan filled is sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict against
her in on his plan. Loring testified that Jordan was Jordan on the first count—aiding and abetting
the driver of the Tundra on the day of the robbery robbery.10 Anderson testified that Jordan enlisted
and that Jordan called her during their drive to the his help in the robbery, was the driver of the
credit union to say, “Follow us,” which she did in Tundra, and was on the phone with him throughout
her Malibu. She continued to hear other voices the robbery. Loring also testified that Jordan
during the drive, as though the phone was on enlisted her help in the robbery, was the driver of
speaker, but no one was speaking directly to those the Tundra, and was on the phone with her
on the phone call. The only voice she recognized throughout the robbery. This testimony is
was Jordan’s. At his direction, Loring went into the substantial enough, on their face, to demonstrate
bank to ensure security wasn’t inside—it wasn’t. that Jordan was involved in the robbery of the
The Tundra then pulled into the parking lot, and the credit union.
to-be robbers went inside. Loring remained on the Jordan argues that Anderson and Loring’s
phone throughout. She then saw the men leave the testimony cannot support his conviction because
credit union, get back in the Tundra, and pull out. they are incredible. However, “[t]he jury retains
Loring attempted to follow, but she was quickly the sole authority to weigh any conflicting
pulled over and arrested. evidence and to evaluate the credibility of
In addition to Loring and Anderson, numerous witnesses.” And, despite Jordan’s assertion in his
officers testified. Among them was Sergeant David reply brief, none of Loring or Anderson’s
Helms, who provided testimony regarding the statements were so outside the realm of possibility
evidence collected at the scene, forensic testing, that no juror could have believed them.13 Jordan’s
and the relationship of the defendants. Specifically, counsel had every opportunity to impeach both
he testified, over defense counsel’s objections, that Anderson and Loring for their previous acts of
Wise and Jordan were brothers. During cross dishonesty and any inconsistencies in their
examination, defense counsel confirmed that testimony, and the jury independently weighed that
Sergeant Helms acquired this knowledge during the testimony and determined that the evidence was
course of the investigation and that neither Jordan sufficient to support a finding of guilt. We do not
nor Wise “tr[ied] to hide it from [him].” second-guess such findings.
Issues regarding sufficiency of the evidence are And even if Anderson and Loring’s testimony
largely fact-based questions that we review de wasn’t credible, the other evidence presented at
novo. And we “must affirm a conviction if, after trial is sufficient to support a guilty verdict.
viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences Officers observed Jordan drive to and from the
‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any location of the robbery the day before the robbery
rational trier of fact could have found the essential in a vehicle that was used as a lookout during the
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” robbery; a phone associated with Jordan moved in
Importantly, this means that our review is “limited the same direction as Jordan the day before the
to whether the jury’s verdict was reasonable, not robbery, and then that phone was used during the
whether we believe it to be correct.” robbery and found on a co-defendant; and the bait

March/April 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 49