United States v. Antico

I join the majority opinion fully as to Parts 2 and 3. I respectfully dissent as to Part 1, Antico’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. That Antieo was engaged in a conspiracy to commit a crime, I have no doubt. The trial evidence demonstrated unequivocally that he was involved in a conspiracy that had as its object divesting Gulinello of his money. But the evidence that the crime Antieo contemplated committing against Gulinello was robbery within the meaning of New York Penal Law § 160.10(1) was much scarcer — so scarce that, even in light of the “exceedingly deferential standard…