Fredrick and Brian Johnson appeal their convictions for aiding and abetting the retaliation against a witness. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1513(b)(2). They contend that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that they acted with an intent to retaliate, and Brian Johnson argues that his inculpatory oral statement should have been suppressed.

We hold that the evidence supports the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Johnsons acted with an intent to retaliate, particularly in light of Brian Johnson’s inculpatory oral statement to that effect. See United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 593-594 (5th Cir. 1986).

We reject Brian Johnson’s claim that his statement should have been suppressed based on his contention that it was unreliable. The issue of his oral statement’s reliability was ultimately a question for the jury, which was free to find the Government’s witnesses’ testimony on this issue credible. See United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.