◆ SpookStack

claimed inconsistent verdicts. The court has carefully reviewed all of these 4 contentions and finds them an inadequate basis for the relief sought, either taken separately or together. . The re & influenced. He makes a further argument with respect ta " | | H insignificance of Weinberg's credibility was discussed ® above in connection with the Myers claims. The sufficiency . of the indictment was reviewed in a pretrial motion and the court's reasoning in that discussion remains unchanged by the trial events. - 7H oo™ The claim of inconsistent. verdicts fails for two reasons. One, inconsistent verdicts in a criminal case do not require reversal. Standefer v. US, 100 SCt 1999 (1980). ° Two, the verdicts are not inconsistent, but easily reconciled on this record in light of the relative participa- :" tions of Thompson and Murphy in the events. Thompson. argues. that there is no conceivable way in which the jury could have found Thompson involved in duping Murphy. -If that . “were so, then Murphy's experienced counsel wasted much “time and his client's money in even trying this case, because > ‘his only defense to the jury was that he was not aware Loe. that there was money in the briefcase. Other evidence in the case demonstrated Thompson's awareness of the actual