Background
Anthony Hernandez was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Section eighteen of the United States Code, Section nine hundred twenty-two, subsection g, paragraph one. The conviction stemmed from an incident where an eyewitness observed a man waving a gun and recognized Hernandez. Police later recovered a pistol near where Hernandez had been standing. Hernandez moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied, and was subsequently sentenced to forty-seven months of imprisonment.
The court’s reasoning
The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government. The court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by the recovery of a firearm within arm’s reach of the defendant, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected arguments regarding the witness’s fear, the nighttime setting, and the lack of forensic evidence, noting these issues pertained to credibility and weight, which are matters for the jury.
On this record, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez knowingly possessed a firearm.
United States v. Hernandez, 25-2086 (10th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that appellate courts will not reweigh witness credibility or substitute their judgment for the jury’s on sufficiency challenges when direct eyewitness testimony is supported by physical evidence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download