Pitt on his IIED claim. As explained in the previous section, the plaintiffs offered evidence that the officers’ affidavit contained several glaring omissions and at least one false statement. Similarly, the jury could have inferred from the evidence that at least one officer tampered with evidence in an attempt to link Mr. Pitt to the scene of the crime. During their investigation, the police found an “ear piece cover for a cell phone” at the scene of the robbery. In the affidavit that was submitted to prosecutors, Officer Adams stated that Mr. Pitt’s “ear piece was missing its cover.” Yet Mr. Pitt testified that his cell phone ear piece was “brand new” and that the foam cover was intact when the police seized his phone. From these facts, a reasonable jury could conclud 11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Mosley v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 85, 89-90 (3d
holding that the criminal act of one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is attributable to the other conspirators for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense  holding that in order for one to be guilty of a conspiracy under  79a812 one or more of the conspirators must commit an overt act as required by  263201 holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators holding that a joint conspiracy trial was proper based on the lack of complexity of the conspiracy the number of defendants and an appropriate jury instruction holding that consistent verdicts are unrequired in joint trials for conspiracy where all but one of the charged conspirators are acquitted the verdict against the one can stand citation omitted