A Tidewater, Virginia area man's drug possession conviction was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence.

The man was convicted on circumstantial evidence as being the "lookout" in a drug distribution scheme based solely on the observatons of the arresting officers and their conclusions about his patterns of conduct that they testified were consistent with his involvement as charged. Although there was no direct evidence to show that the defendant was aware that his companions had drugs or guns in their vehicle, or in baggage that two passengers carried into the car from the bus station, the trial court found the evidecne sufficient for guilt and refused to overturn the jury verdict.

In a relatively rare occurrence, the VIrginia Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and dismissed the indictment against him. The Court reasoned that the convictiion in this case -- built solely on the circumstantial evidence of the police officers who testified about "patterns of conduct" that allowed the jury to impermissibly "pile inference upon inference" in -- was not sufficient because it was based on speculation, not facts. Among the factors the appeals court mentioned was that there was no evidence the defendant either knowingly or intentionally exercised any dominion or control over the vehicle or the drugs in the containers placed in the vehicles, or had actual or constructive knowledge of the contents.