Scribd
Upload
34 views19 pages

United States v. Adames-Santos, 1st Cir. (1996)

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Marcelina Adames-Santos' conviction on three grounds in a per curiam opinion. First, the court found no Brady violation in the government's failure to disclose the identity of a confidential informant prior to trial. Second, the court found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after a witness mentioned a firearm, as the court gave a swift and clear curative instruction.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
34 views19 pages

United States v. Adames-Santos, 1st Cir. (1996)

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Marcelina Adames-Santos' conviction on three grounds in a per curiam opinion. First, the court found no Brady violation in the government's failure to disclose the identity of a confidential informant prior to trial. Second, the court found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after a witness mentioned a firearm, as the court gave a swift and clear curative instruction.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

USCA1 Opinion

July 18, 1996


[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-2323

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

MARCELINA ENRIQUE ADAMES-SANTOS,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]


___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,


Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Michael c. Shklar on brief for appellant.


_________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,
__________________

and Zechariah Chaf


______________

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

appeals

affirm.

his

conviction

Marcelina

on

Enrique

three grounds.

Adames-Santos

We

summarily

I.

Brady Violation
_______________

The first argument is that the government's failure

to disclose prior

to trial the identity

informant Miguel Morel, violated

83

(1963).

"[F]avorable

constitutional

error

government, 'if

of the confidential

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.


_____
________

evidence

results from

is

its

there is a reasonable

material,

suppression

and

by the

probability that, had

the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the

proceeding would

115

S. Ct.

require the

all witnesses

1555,

have been

different.'"

1565 (1995).

Kyles
_____

The Brady
_____

prosecution to reveal before trial

who will testify

v. Whitley,
_______

rule does

not

the names of

against the defendant.

See
___

Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559


___________
______

no requirement under

F.R. Crim.

(1977).

P. 16 or

otherwise in

law, mandating the disclosure to the defense

of the government's trial witnesses. . . .

admit the testimony or

the

trial judge."

[T]he decision to

discretion of

Reis, 788
____

F.2d 54, 58

(1st Cir. 1986); see


___

also United States v. Edwards,


____ _____________
_______

841,

1995)

843 (7th

Constitution

Cir.

does

not

("It

require

prosecution witnesses.")

-3-

is well-settled

pretrial

the

of the identity

evidence is within the

United States v.
_____________

"There is

47 F.3d

that

disclosure

the

of

Appellant

probability

prior

failed

to

show

reasonable

that if he had been informed of Morel's identity

to trial, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.

money

has

Morel testified

he earned

Administration

as an

on

cross-examination

informant for

the Drug

("DEA") was his main source

that

the

Enforcement

of income.

Even

now, appellant has failed to identify any additional evidence

that

The

could have been

used to

government's failure to

further impeach

the witness.

disclose Morel's identity prior

to trial does not undermine confidence in the jury's verdict.

See
___

Kyles, 115
_____

S. Ct.

at 1566.

Therefore,

there was

no

constitutional violation.

II.

Sufficiency of the Evidence


___________________________

To establish

a violation of

21 U.S.C.

846, the

government is required to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, in

addition to the existence of the conspiracy itself, an intent

on the

part

effectuate

of the

defendant:

the commission

of

"to

agree and

the substantive

. .

to

offense.

defendant need not have

had the intent personally

to commit

the substantive crime."

United States v. Piper, 35 F.3d 611,

_____________

615

_____

(1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.


_____________

The government establishes

beyond

a reasonable

undertake

activities

the requisite

doubt that

that

Ct. 1118 (1995).

intent by

the defendant

facilitate[d]

proving

"agree[d] to

commission

of

substantive offense, [notwithstanding that he did] not intend

-4-

to

need

commit

not

the offense

prove

furtherance of

the

himself."

Id.1
1
___

commission

the conspiracy."

of

"[T]he Government

any

overt

United States
_____________

acts

in

v. Shabani,
_______

115 S. Ct. 382, 385 (1994).

"When a criminal defendant undertakes a sufficiency

challenge, all the evidence,

be viewed

from the

direct and circumstantial, must

government's coign

of vantage, and

the

viewer must accept all reasonable inferences from it that are

consistent

with the

F.3d 210, 216

proof "may

evidence,

verdict."

(1st Cir.

be satisfied

or any

United States v.
_____________

1995). The

government's burden

by either direct

combination

Valle, 72
_____

thereof."

of

or circumstantial

United States

v.

_____________

Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 467 (1st Cir. 1994).


_______

The evidence

presented to the jury

to sustain defendant's guilty

among

other evidence, accounts

Morel, Domingo Peguero and

drugs and,

crack."

Morel

supply crack

appellant in which they discussed

recounted a

included

he had

to Morel's

the

The record contains,

of frequent meetings between

specifically, ways to "make

appellant said that

also

verdict.

was sufficient

some transactions of

specific conversation

contacts in New

contacts in

transcript

of

York who

Boston.

in which

could

The evidence

telephone

call

from

____________________

1Defendant
1

argues that

the

evidence does

not show

"an

intent

on

the defendant's

crack." Appellant's

Brief,

part to
p.

15.

engage
No

in the
such

sale of

showing

is

required,however.

-5-

appellant to Morel, made

for the purpose of

notifying Morel

that Peguero was in Boston "doing business" and that "in case

these

DEA

people call you, tell

agents

testified

that

them to hold

during

the

on until Monday."

October

30

drug

transaction, appellant was circlingthe area in Peguero's car.

"[I]t is not a pre-requisite of conviction that the

prosecution

adduce

evidence to

hypothesis of innocence.'"

775,

779

(1st Cir.

(1995).

In

'every reasonable

United States v.
_____________

Montas, 41 F.3d
______

1994), cert. denied,


_____________

addition,

this

credibility disputes in the

v. Taylor, 54
______

preclude

court

115 S.

must

"resolve

verdict's favor."

F.3d 967, 974 (1st Cir. 1995).

Ct. 1986

all

United States
_____________

Our review of

the record persuades us that a rational jury could have found

beyond

reasonable

doubt

that

the

successfully proved the essential elements

charge.

III.

Failure to Grant Mistrial

government

had

of the conspiracy

_________________________

Appellant's

court

erred

in

not

final argument

granting

is

a mistrial

testimony by DEA agent John D. Adams that

firearm

medicine,

from

. .

Peguero.

it

"[B]ecause

is only

rarely

that the

because

of

the

he had purchased a

mistrials

--

district

are

and in

strong

extremely

compelling circumstances -- that an appellate panel, informed

by a cold record, will venture to reverse a trial judge's on-

the-spot

decision

that

the

interests of

-6-

justice

do

not

require aborting an ongoing trial."

32 F.3d

611, 617 (1st Cir.

919 (1995).

1184-85

1994), cert. denied,


____________

In United States v. Sepulveda,


______________
_________

(1st Cir.

(1994), this

United States v. Pierro,


_____________
______

1993),

cert. denied,
_____________

court identified

115 S. Ct.

15 F.3d

114 S.

three factors that

1161,

Ct.

2714

should be

considered in reviewing a district court's decision to deny a

mistrial: 1) the appropriateness of the curative instruction,

2)

the

swiftness

presumption

that

of

the

jurors

judicial

will

follow

response, and

direct

3)

the

curative

instruction.

In

this case, consideration of the three Sepulveda


_________

factors indicates

the

district

failure to

trial.

that there was

court's decision

revisit the issue

The

court's

no abuse of

to

deny a

sua sponte
___ ______

mistrial

or its

at the end

of the

curative instructions,

testimony in

discretion in

given

almost

were

swift,

immediately after

the

question,

clear and direct.

There was no room for misinterpretation by

the jurors regarding the meaning of the court's instructions.

Finally, appellant's claim that

so weak that

the jurors

testimony is belied by

the evidence against him was

must have relied

the record.

upon the

As discussed

evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

firearm

above, the

Appellant

has failed

to rebut the

presumption that the

jury followed

the court's curative instructions.

-7-

Appellant's

Loc. R. 27.1.

conviction is summarily affirmed.


_________ ________

See
___

-8-

You might also like