united states v. plaza-santiago, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Plaza-Santiago, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 216012- 1814

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

NORMA SANTOS- SOTO,

CARLOS PLAZA- SANTI AGO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Car men Consuel o Cer ezo, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Gai l S. St r assf el d, f or appel l ant Sant os- Sot o.Ramn M. Gonzl ez, f or appel l ant Pl aza- Sant i ago.Ti f f any V. Monrose, Scot t H. Ander son, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es

At t or neys, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 24, 2015


2/28

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Af t er a s i x- day j ury t r i al ,

Def endant s- Appel l ant s Nor ma Sant os- Sot o ( "Sant os" ) and Car l os

Pl aza- Sant i ago ( "Pl aza") , f or mer pol i ce agent s of t he Puer t o Ri co

Pol i ce, wer e convi ct ed of conspi r acy t o i nj ur e, oppr ess, t hr eat en,

and i nt i mi dat e per sons i n t he town of Ar eci bo i n t he exer ci se of

t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 241

( Count 1) and conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

cont r ol l ed subst ances i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841, 846

( Count 2) . On appeal , t hey chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence suppor t i ng t hei r convi ct i ons on Count 2. 1 Af t er car ef ul

consi der at i on, we r ever se Sant os' s convi ct i on on Count 2 f or

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence, but f i nd t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence

t o convi ct Pl aza on Count 2. We, t her ef or e, af f i r mhi s convi ct i on.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

We r eci t e the f act s as t he j ur y coul d have f ound t hem,

vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s

ver di ct . See Uni t ed St at es v. Bel t r n, 503 F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) . Sant os and Pl aza used t o wor k as pol i ce agent s i n t he

Ar eci bo Dr ug Di vi si on of t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce. I n 2007, as

member s of t he "Conf i dent i al i t y" sect i on, Def endant s wor ked wi t h

under cover agent s, i ncl udi ng Agent J os Rodr guez- Vzquez

( "Rodr guez" ) . Sant os was i n char ge of under cover agent Rodr guez.

1 Def endant s do not chal l enge t hei r convi ct i ons on Count 1.

-2-


3/28

On J ul y 5, 2007, t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce, Ar eci bo Dr ug

Di vi si on, execut ed ar r est war r ant s agai nst some i ndi vi dual s. Two

of t hese i ndi vi dual s - - J uan Car l os Aqui no- Mndez ( "Aqui no") and

Rober t o Gonzl ez- Medi na ( "Gonzl ez- Medi na" ) - - wer e ar r est ed based

on compl ai nt s f i l ed f or an al l eged dr ug t r ansact i on t hat t ook pl ace

on Febr uary 7, 2007. These compl ai nt s were pr edi cat ed on a sworn

af f i davi t pr epared on Febr uary 9, 2007, by undercover agent

Rodr guez, wher e he st at ed t hat he and a conf i dent i al i nf or mant ,

Geral d Hernndez- Vera ( "Hernndez") , had pur chased t wo ounces of

cocai ne f r om Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na on Febr uary 7, 2007.

However , t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t hi s af f i davi t det ai l i ng t he

t r ansact i on was f al se.

The February Incident

On Febr uar y 7, 2007, Rodr guez and Hernndez di d not

pur chase any dr ugs f r omei t her Aqui no or Gonzl ez- Medi na. I nst ead,

on Febr uary 6, 2007, agent Edgardo Hernndez- Lpez ( a/ k/ a "Eggy") ,

a pol i ce of f i cer at t he Ar eci bo I l l egal Weapons Uni t of t he Puer t o

Ri co Pol i ce, gave t wo ounces of cocai ne t o Her nndez t o pl ant on

Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na i n order t o f r ame them, because Eggy had

a personal gr udge agai nst Aqui no. On Febr uary 7, 2007, Rodr guez

and Hernndez were supposed t o do a cont r ol l ed buy of dr ugs f r om

Aqui no' s al l eged pusher , Gonzl ez- Medi na. They dr ove t oget her t o

Gonzl ez- Medi na' s house and Hernndez got out of t he car and wal ked

t o t he r ear si de of Gonzl ez- Medi na' s house to do t he cont r ol l ed

-3-


4/28

buy whi l e Rodr guez st ayed i n t he car . Her nndez t al ked br i ef l y t o

Gonzl ez- Medi na' s f at her , but di d not pur chase any dr ugs or t al k t o

anyone el se. At t he t i me, Hernndez had t he dr ugs t hat Eggy had

gi ven hi m t he day bef or e hi dden i n hi s boot , but he di d not t el l

t hi s to Rodr guez. I nst ead, Her nndez t ook out t he dr ugs f r omhi s

boot and, upon r et ur ni ng t o t he car , t ol d Rodr guez t hat Gonzl ez-

Medi na had j ust sol d hi m t hose dr ugs on behal f of Aqui no.

Rodr guez then t ook Hernndez home and l ef t wi t h t he dr ugs. Whi l e

t hi s was t aki ng pl ace, Sant os and Pl aza wer e t oget her i n a pol i ce

car i n t he gener al vi ci ni t y, but t hey di d not see t he "t r ansact i on"

t ake pl ace. Sant os af t er war ds submi t t ed t he dr ugs f or t est i ng t o

t he I nst i t ut e of For ensi c Sci ence, 2 whi ch concl uded t hat t hey were

i n f act cocai ne.

Two days l at er , on Februar y 9, 2007, Rodr guez prepar ed

a swor n af f i davi t , i n whi ch he st at ed t hat he and t he conf i dent i al

i nf ormant , Hernndez, had pur chased t wo ounces of cocai ne f r om

Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na on Febr uary 7, 2007. Rodr guez' s sworn

af f i davi t of Febr uar y 9, 2007, was t hen used t o suppor t compl ai nt s

char gi ng Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na wi t h st at e dr ug- r el at ed

of f enses, and ar r est war r ant s wer e i ssued agai nst t hem i n J ul y

2007.

The July Incident

2 Thi s was nor mal pr ocedur e.

-4-


5/28

The ar r est war r ants f or Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na wer e

t o be execut ed on J ul y 5, 2007. Sant os assi gned t he ar r est

war r ant s r el at ed t o t he Febr uar y i nci dent t o Agent Ber ni e Gonzl ez-

Vl ez ( "Gonzl ez- Vl ez" ) , who had j oi ned t he Ar eci bo Dr ug Di vi si on

ear l i er t hat year . Accor di ng t o Gonzl ez- Vl ez' s t r i al t est i mony, 3

Sant os, Pl aza, and t wo ot her pol i ce agent s devel oped a pl an whereby

Gonzl ez- Vl ez and Rodr guez were t o conduct a buy- bust operat i on.

Pur suant t o t he pl an, Gonzl ez- Vl ez woul d go t o Aqui no' s house

wi t h Rodr guez t o buy some dr ugs f r omAqui no. Af t er payi ng f or t he

dr ugs, Gonzl ez- Vl ez woul d execut e t he ar r est war r ant i ssued as a

r esul t of t he Febr uary compl ai nt . However , Hernndez agai n got

cocai ne pr i or t o t he pl anned buy- bust . Ear l i er t hat day, Her nndez

obt ai ned f i f t y baggi es of cocai ne f r omEggy and Agent J os Gonzl ez

( a/ k/ a "Tut i " ) , who al so wor ked at t he Ar eci bo I l l egal Weapons Uni t

of t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce. Bot h Eggy and Tut i t ol d Her nndez t o

pl ant t he cocai ne on Aqui no. Accor di ng t o Her nndez' s t r i al

t est i mony, Pl aza cal l ed hi m on J ul y 5, 2007, and t ol d hi m t o

pur chase f i f t y bags of cocai ne f r om Aqui no.

Her nndez consumed t hr ee to f i ve of t he f i f t y baggi es of

cocai ne that Eggy and Tut i had gi ven hi m, and t hen met wi t h

Gonzl ez- Vl ez and Rodr guez. Hernndez gave t he r emai ni ng f ort y-

f i ve t o f or t y- seven baggi es of cocai ne t o Rodr guez, and t ol d hi m

t hat he had pur chased t he dr ugs f r om Aqui no ear l i er t hat day.

3 Gonzl ez- Vl ez t est i f i ed pur suant t o a pl ea agr eement .

-5-


6/28

Her nndez t ol d Gonzl ez- Vl ez and Rodr guez t hat t hey st i l l needed

t o pay Aqui no f or t he dr ugs. Because Hernndez had al r eady got t en

t he dr ugs, t he or i gi nal buy- bust pl an was changed. The of f i cer s

t hen pl anned t o pay Aqui no f or t he cocai ne that he had al l egedl y

sol d Her nndez ear l i er t hat day, and t hen ar r est hi m af t er maki ng

t he payment . When Gonzl ez- Vl ez and Rodr guez suggest ed t hat

Hernndez go wi t h them t o pay Aqui no f or t he dr ugs, Hernndez

r ef used. I nst ead, he r equest ed t o be t aken home because he f ear ed

t hat Aqui no woul d l abel hi m as a sni t ch and ki l l hi m. Gonzl ez-

Vl ez t hen r adi oed t he pat r ol car where Sant os and Pl aza were and

i nf ormed t hemt hat Hernndez di d not want t o go t o Aqui no' s house

and want ed t o be t aken home i nst ead. Pl aza t ol d Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o

t ake Hernndez home, whi ch he di d. At no t i me di d Gonzl ez- Vl ez

t el l Pl aza t hat Her nndez had al r eady "pur chased" t he dr ugs f r om

Aqui no or t hat t hey al r eady had t he dr ugs.

Af t er dr oppi ng Hernndez at hi s house, Rodr guez and

Gonzl ez- Vl ez ar r i ved at Aqui no' s house t o execut e t he ar r est

war r ant . Ther e wer e no ot her pol i ce of f i cer s at Aqui no' s house,

but ot her of f i cer s had agr eed t o be near by. Rodr guez exi t ed t he

car and cal l ed f or Aqui no. When Aqui no came out of hi s house,

Rodr guez t ol d hi m t hat he was t her e to pay f or t he dr ugs he had

gi ven ear l i er t o Hernndez, but Aqui no deni ed any knowl edge of t he

dr ugs. Rodr guez t hen i dent i f i ed Aqui no by t aki ng of f hi s wat ch - -

a pr ear r anged si gnal - - and r et ur ned t o t he car whi l e Aqui no went

-6-


7/28

back i nt o hi s house. Gonzl ez- Vl ez t hen exi t ed t he car and cal l ed

Aqui no. When Aqui no once agai n came out of hi s house, Gonzl ez-

Vl ez ar r est ed hi m and sear ched hi m, but di d not f i nd anythi ng

i l l egal . Gonzl ez- Vl ez t hen r adi oed Sant os, Pl aza, and t wo ot her

agent s who wer e al l t oget her i n t he same pol i ce car and t ol d t hem

t hat " t he t ar get had been ar r est ed. " He di d not ment i on anythi ng

about t he dr ugs. Sant os, Pl aza, and t he ot her t wo agent s ar r i ved

at Aqui no' s house i n l ess t han t en mi nut es. Ot her of f i cer s ar r i ved

shor t l y t her eaf t er . I mmedi at el y upon hi s ar r i val Pl aza asked

Gonzl ez- Vl ez f or t he "bundl e" of cocai ne. Gonzl ez- Vl ez t hen

gave Pl aza t he dr ugs t hat Rodr guez had gi ven hi m. Pl aza t ook t he

"bundl e" and t ol d Aqui no, "Thi s i s your s. " Aqui no deni ed t hat i t

was hi s. The of f i cer s t hen sear ched Aqui no' s house f or

appr oxi mat el y t went y mi nut es but di d not f i nd anythi ng i l l egal .

Al l t hey f ound was over $2, 000 i n a dr awer , whi ch Gonzl ez- Vl ez

sei zed. Aqui no was t aken t o t he pol i ce st at i on i n a van, whi l e

Gonzl ez- Vl ez l ef t wi t h Rodr guez.

Lat er t hat day, Pl aza ar r est ed Her nndez at hi s house,

t hough hi s ar r est was f ake. 4 He was al so t aken t o t he pol i ce

st at i on and l ef t i n a hol di ng cel l unt i l t he next day, when he was

r el eased on bai l , whi ch was pai d f or by Pl aza.

4 Ot her peopl e, i ncl udi ng Gonzl ez- Medi na, wer e al so ar r est ed onJ ul y 5, 2007.

-7-


8/28

Af t er al l t he ar r est s wer e made on J ul y 5, 2007, t he

agent s went back t o t he pol i ce st at i on. Ther e, Gonzl ez- Vl ez

asked Santos and Pl aza what woul d happen because t he drugs had not

been sei zed f r om Aqui no and t he buy- bust had not t aken pl ace.

Sant os and Pl aza i nst r uct ed Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o t el l t he di st r i ct

at t or ney t hat he had sei zed t he dr ugs f r om Aqui no' s per son.

Gonzl ez- Vl ez t ol d Sant os and Pl aza t hat " t he f act s di dn' t occur

l i ke t hat , " t o whi ch t hey r esponded t hat " i t was Aqui no' s dr ugs,

submi t t he case l i ke t hat . " Gonzl ez- Vl ez di d exact l y as Sant os

and Pl aza had i nst r uct ed. He t ol d t he di st r i ct at t or ney t hat he

had a sear ch warr ant f or Aqui no and t hat when he ar r est ed and

searched hi m, he sei zed dr ugs and money f r om Aqui no. 5

I n Sept ember 2007, i n col l abor at i on wi t h t he Feder al

Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( "FBI ") , 6 Gonzl ez- Vl ez had t hr ee r ecor ded

conver sat i ons wi t h Sant os about t he J ul y 5 i nci dent . I n t hese

conver sat i ons, Sant os - - unawar e that she was bei ng r ecor ded - -

t ol d Gonzl ez- Vl ez t hat he shoul d st i ck t o " t he same st or y" he

pr evi ousl y t ol d t he di st r i ct at t or ney back i n J ul y 2007. Gonzl ez-

Vl ez was unabl e t o r ecor d any conver sat i ons wi t h Pl aza. Al so i n

Sept ember 2007, Sant os t al ked t o FBI agent J ul i o Tobar . She t ol d

5 Based on t hi s i nf or mat i on, Aqui no was char ged i n st at e cour twi t h dr ug- r el at ed of f enses. Gonzl ez- Vl ez t est i f i ed agai nst hi mi n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs, wher e he mai nt ai ned t he f al se ver si on oft he event s t hat he had pr evi ousl y t ol d t he di st r i ct at t or ney.

6 I t i s uncl ear f r om t he r ecor d how t he FBI f i r st became i nvol vedi n t hi s case.

-8-


9/28

Tobar t hat on J ul y 5, 2007, she l earned f r omHer nndez t hat he had

r ecei ved baggi es of cocai ne f r omAqui no, and admi t t ed t o Tobar t hat

she i nst r uct ed Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o "char ge Aqui no as i f t he dr ugs had

been f ound i n hi s possessi on, " despi t e knowi ng t hat t he dr ugs had

not been f ound on Aqui no or i n hi s house.

Subpoenaed phone r ecor ds of Eggy, Tut i , and Pl aza f or t he

mont hs of Febr uary, J une, J ul y, and Sept ember 2007, showed t hat t he

t el ephone cal l s bet ween Pl aza, Eggy, and Tut i si gni f i cant l y

i ncr eased i n f r equency on t he days bef or e, of , and f ol l owi ng t he

Febr uar y and J ul y i nci dent s. 7 Speci f i cal l y, on Febr uar y 6, 2007 - -

t he day when Eggy gave Hernndez t wo ounces of cocai ne t o pl ant on

Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na - - t he r ecor ds showed t hr ee t el ephone

cal l s bet ween Eggy, Tut i , and Pl aza. Fi r st , Eggy cal l ed Tut i , t hen

Pl aza cal l ed Tut i , and af t er war ds Eggy and Tut i had anot her

t el ephone conver sat i on. On t he f ol l owi ng day, t he day of t he

Febr uar y i nci dent , t her e wer e ni ne t el ephone cal l s bet ween Eggy,

Tut i , and Pl aza, and Pl aza par t i ci pat ed i n f our of t hem. I n t he

mor ni ng, Tut i cal l ed Eggy, and t hen cal l ed Pl aza. Bet ween 4: 18 pm

and 4: 40 pm, t he t hr ee agent s had f our t el ephone conver sat i ons.

Fi r st , Eggy and Tut i t al ked, t hen Pl aza cal l ed Tut i , and af t er

speaki ng wi t h Pl aza, Tut i cal l ed Eggy. The t hr ee of t hem had

addi t i onal t el ephone conver sat i ons dur i ng t he eveni ng. A si mi l ar

7 Sant os' s t el ephone r ecor ds were not subpoenaed.

-9-


10/28

pat t er n was r ef l ect ed i n t he recor ds f or Febr uar y 8, t he day af t er

t he Febr uar y i nci dent .

The r ecor ds al so showed t hat f r omJ ul y 2 t o J ul y 6, 2007,

Pl aza had sevent een t el ephone cal l s wi t h Tut i and Eggy, 8 and Pl aza

i ni t i at ed mor e t han f or t y per cent of t hese cal l s. 9 Si x of t he

sevent een t el ephone cal l s wer e pr i or t o t he buy- bust , whi l e t he

r emai ni ng el even wer e ei t her dur i ng or af t er t he pl anned buy- bust .

I n addi t i on, dur i ng t hi s same per i od, Tut i and Eggy cal l ed each

ot her on t hi r t y- one occasi ons. The evi dence showed not onl y t hat

Pl aza, Tut i , and Eggy wer e i n const ant communi cat i on dur i ng these

days, but al so t hat t hei r t el ephone cal l s wer e r el at i vel y

cont emporaneous. Many t i mes two of t he agent s woul d t al k and

i mmedi atel y upon hangi ng up t he phone, one of t hem woul d

communi cat e wi t h t he t hi r d agent . For exampl e, on J ul y 5, 2007,

one hour bef ore t he buy- bust operat i on was schedul ed t o begi n, Tut i

and Pl aza had a t el ephone conver sat i on at 3: 01 pm t hat l ast ed f or

t wo mi nut es. I mmedi at el y af t er hangi ng up wi t h Pl aza, Tut i cal l ed

Eggy at 3: 03 pm. Si mi l ar l y, l at er t hat same day, and cl ose i n t i me

t o t he pl anned buy- bust oper at i on, Pl aza cal l ed Tut i at 6: 58 pmand

t al ked t o hi m f or t wo mi nut es. I mmedi at el y af t er f i ni shi ng hi s

8 Ten of t hese t el ephone cal l s wer e wi t h Tut i , and t he r emai ni ngseven wer e wi t h Eggy.

9 Four t een out of t he sevent een t el ephone cal l s were made on t hedays bef or e, of , and f ol l owi ng t he J ul y i nci dent . Ei ght of t hesecal l s were made on J ul y 5, 2007.

-10-


11/28

conver sat i on wi t h Pl aza, Tut i cal l ed Eggy at 7: 01 pm. The evi dence

r ef l ect s t he same pat t ern of cont emporaneous cal l s bet ween t he

t hr ee of t hem on t he day f ol l owi ng t he ar r est of Aqui no, when si x

t el ephone cal l s were made between Eggy, Tut i , and Pl aza wi t hi n a

t i me f r ame of bar el y ei ght mi nut es. 10

The t el ephone r ecor ds admi t t ed i nto evi dence showed t hat

t he tel ephone cal l s bet ween Pl aza, Eggy, and Tut i ar ound t he

Febr uar y and J ul y i nci dent s const i t ut ed a spi ke i n r el at i on t o t he

t el ephone recor ds f or t he rest of t he per i od exami ned, whi ch showed

t hat Pl aza barel y communi cat ed wi t h Eggy or Tut i by phone. 11

10 For exampl e, on J ul y 6, 2007, Eggy cal l ed Tut i at 3: 25 pm andt al ked t o hi m f or f our mi nut es, unt i l 3: 29 pm. At 3: 29 pm Eggyr ecei ved an i ncomi ng cal l f r om Pl aza. He t al ked t o Pl aza f or t womi nut es, unt i l 3: 31 pm, when he t hen r ecei ved a cal l f r om Tut i at3: 31 pm. At 3: 32 pm, one mi nut e af t er Pl aza f i ni shed hi sconver sat i on wi t h Eggy, Pl aza cal l ed Tut i on hi s phone. Then, r i ghtaf t er f i ni shi ng hi s conver sat i on wi t h Pl aza, Tut i cal l ed Eggy at3: 33 pm.

11 The evi dence does not r ef l ect a si ngl e t el ephone cal l bet weenPl aza and Eggy f r om l at e J anuar y t o Febr uar y 28, 2007, ot her t hant he ones he had on t he days of and af t er t he Febr uar y i nci dent . I naddi t i on, t he t el ephone r ecor ds r ef l ect t hat dur i ng t he ent i r emont hs of J une and J ul y 2007, Pl aza and Eggy communi cat ed by phoneon onl y t hr ee days, asi de f r om t he days of and af t er t he J ul yi nci dent . As t o hi s t el ephone conver sat i ons wi t h Tut i , t heevi dence showed t hat dur i ng t he ent i r e mont h of Febr uary 2007,asi de f r om t he days of and af t er t he Febr uar y i nci dent , Pl azacommuni cat ed wi t h Tut i by phone onl y on Febr uary 14, 2007, whi chwas t he day bef or e t he I nst i t ut e of For ensi c Sci ence r ecei ved t he

dr ugs f r om t he Febr uar y i nci dent f or t est i ng. The t el ephoner ecor ds al so r ef l ect t hat f r om J une 1 t o J ul y 31, 2007, Pl aza andTut i communi cat ed by phone on onl y one day asi de f r om t he daysar ound t he J ul y i nci dent . We not e sever al t el ephone cal l s bet weenPl aza and Tut i i n Sept ember 2007. Al t hough t he part i es do not makeanyt hi ng of i t , we acknowl edge that t hese cal l s were made ar oundt he t i me t hat t he FBI i ni t i at ed i t s i nvest i gat i on i n t hi s case.

-11-


12/28

B. Procedural Background

On Oct ober 1, 2007, a gr and j ur y r etur ned a t wo- count

i ndi ct ment char gi ng Sant os and Pl aza, al ong wi t h ot her s, 12 wi t h

( 1) conspi r acy t o i nj ur e, oppr ess, t hr eat en, and i nt i mi dat e per sons

i n t he t own of Ar eci bo i n t he exer ci se of t hei r const i t ut i onal

r i ght s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 241 ( Count 1) , and

( 2) conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed

subst ances i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841, 846 ( Count 2) . 13

Sant os and Pl aza wer e t r i ed j oi nt l y. At t he cl ose of t he

government ' s case, both Def endant s moved f or j udgment s of acqui t t al

under Rul e 29 of Feder al Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, whi ch t he di st r i ct

cour t deni ed. Af t er pr esent i ng t hei r wi t nesses, Def endant s r enewed

t hei r mot i ons f or acqui t t al , whi ch wer e agai n deni ed. On

Oct ober 28, 2010, af t er a si x- day t r i al , t he j ur y f ound Sant os and

Pl aza gui l t y of bot h count s. Sant os was sent enced t o concur r ent

t er ms of f i f t y- one mont hs of i mpr i sonment on each count , t o be

f ol l owed by concur r ent t hr ee- year t er ms of super vi sed r el ease on

each count , and a $200 speci al monetary assessment . The di st r i ct

12 The conf i dent i al i nf ormant , Her nndez, and agent s Gonzl ez- Vl ezand Rodr guez wer e al so i ndi ct ed. Her nndez pl ed gui l t y t o t he t woconspi r acy char ges, Gonzl ez- Vl ez pl ed gui l t y t o conspi r acy tovi ol at e const i t ut i onal r i ght s, and Rodr guez pl ed gui l t y to a

char ge of wi t hhol di ng i nf or mat i on of a f el ony.

13 I n Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d 1, 16 ( 1st Ci r .2012) , we hel d t hat a conspi r acy by l aw enf or cement of f i cer s t opl ant cont r ol l ed subst ances on vi ct i ms i n or der t o f abr i cat ecri mi nal cases ent ai l s t he speci f i c i nt ent t o di st r i but e wi t hi n t hemeani ng of 841( a) ( 1) .

-12-


13/28

cour t sent enced Pl aza t o concur r ent t er ms of f or t y- one mont hs of

i mpr i sonment on each count , t o be f ol l owed by concur r ent t hr ee- year

t erms of supervi sed r el ease on each count , and a $200 speci al

monetary assessment . Sant os and Pl aza appeal t hei r Count 2

convi ct i ons onl y.

On appeal , Sant os and Pl aza chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence suppor t i ng t hei r convi ct i ons on Count 2, and cl ai m

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng t hei r r espect i ve mot i ons

f or acqui t t al . Sant os ar gues that t he gover nment di d not pr esent

any evi dence t hat she knew t he dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he Febr uary or

J ul y i nci dent s di d not come f r om Gonzl ez- Medi na or Aqui no and,

t hus, t here was no evi dence t hat she had knowl edge of t he

conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed

subst ances. Sant os al so cl ai ms that t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove

t hat she possessed t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances;

t hat i s, t hat "t he cocai ne be t r ansf er r ed bet ween pol i ce of f i cer s

i n or der t o be pl ant ed on any vi ct i m. "

Pl aza al l eges t hat , as t o t he Febr uar y i nci dent , t her e

was no evi dence t hat he had anyt hi ng t o do wi t h the dr ugs r ecei ved

f r om Eggy and Tut i f or t he pur pose of f abr i cat i ng a case agai nst

Aqui no. I n r el at i on t o t he J ul y i nci dent , Pl aza cl ai ms t hat t he

government f ai l ed t o pr oduce evi dence showi ng beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t hat he knew of t he exi st ence of t he conspi r acy t o possess

-13-


14/28

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances and t hat he

knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y j oi ned sai d conspi r acy.

II. Discussion

We r evi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on

made under Rul e 29 f or j udgment of acqui t t al . Uni t ed St at es v.

Ul l oa, 760 F. 3d 113, 118 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n so doi ng, "we exami ne

t he evi dence, bot h di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al , i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct . " Uni t ed St at es v. Tr i ni dad-

Acost a, 773 F. 3d 298, 310 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . We do not f ocus on each pi ece of evi dence

separ at el y. Rat her , we eval uat e t he sum of al l t he evi dence and

i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om, and det er mi ne whet her t hat sum i s

enough f or any reasonabl e j ur y to f i nd al l t he el ement s of t he

cr i me pr oven beyond a r easonabl e doubt , even i f t he i ndi vi dual

pi eces of evi dence ar e not enough when vi ewed i n i sol at i on. Uni t ed

St at es v. Shaw, 670 F. 3d 360, 362 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( " I ndi vi dual

pi eces of evi dence vi ewed i n i sol at i on may be i nsuf f i ci ent i n

t hemsel ves t o pr ove a poi nt , but i n cumul at i on may i ndeed meet t he

mar k. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mena- Robl es, 4 F. 3d 1026, 1031 ( 1st Ci r .

1993) ( " [ J ] ur i es ar e not r equi r ed t o exami ne t he evi dence i n

i sol at i on, f or i ndi vi dual pi eces of evi dence, i nsuf f i ci ent i n

t hemsel ves t o pr ove a poi nt , may i n cumul at i on pr ove i t . The sum

of an evi dent i ar y pr esent at i on may wel l be gr eat er t han i t s

const i t uent par t s. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Al so, i n

-14-


15/28

r evi ewi ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence, " [ w] e do not assess t he

credi bi l i t y of a wi t ness, as t hat i s a r ol e r eser ved f or t he j ur y.

Nor need we be convi nced t hat t he government succeeded i n

el i mi nat i ng ever y possi bl e t heor y consi st ent wi t h t he def endant ' s

i nnocence. " Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 310- 11 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . "Rather , we must deci de whether t hat

evi dence, i ncl udi ng al l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om, woul d

al l ow a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt

t hat t he def endant commi t t ed t he char ged cr i me, " i d. at 311

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) , even i f t hat

concl usi on i s not i nevi t abl e. Uni t ed St at es v. Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d 22,

30 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( The evi dence "suf f i ces i f t he concl usi ons t hat

t he j ur y dr aws f r om [ i t ] , al t hough not i nevi t abl e, ar e

r easonabl e. " ) . "The ver di ct must st and unl ess t he evi dence i s so

scant t hat a r at i onal f act f i nder coul d not concl ude t hat t he

government pr oved al l t he essent i al el ement s of t he charged cr i me

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Vl ez, 597

F. 3d 32, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( emphasi s omi t t ed) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d 59, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hat so l ong as

"any reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd al l t he el ement s of t he cr i me

beyond a r easonabl e doubt , we must uphol d t he convi ct i on" ( i nt ernal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Thus, "def endant s chal l engi ng

convi ct i ons f or i nsuf f i ci ency of evi dence f ace an uphi l l bat t l e on

-15-


16/28

appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Never t hel ess, "we must ' r ej ect t hose evi dent i ar y

i nt er pr et at i ons and i l l at i ons t hat ar e unr easonabl e, i nsuppor t abl e,

or over l y specul at i ve. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Mar t nez, 778

F. 3d 367, 371 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nney, 65

F. 3d 231, 234 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) . "Wher e t he evi dence pr esent ed does

not support t he i nf erence that a def endant had knowl edge of t he

cr i me, we have consi st ent l y f ound t he evi dence i nsuf f i ci ent . " I d.

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Mel ndez, 599 F. 3d 31, 42 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ) .

To sust ai n a drug- conspi r acy convi ct i on, t he gover nment

must prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he def endant "knew about

and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy, ' i nt endi ng t o

commi t t he under l yi ng subst ant i ve of f ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d 179, 190 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Or t i z de J ess, 230 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . "An

agr eement t o j oi n a conspi r acy may be expr ess or t aci t , and may be

pr oved by di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, " Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773

F. 3d at 311 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Li r i ano, 761 F. 3d 131, 135

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ) , such as i nf erences " dr awn f r ommember s' wor ds and

act i ons and f r om t he i nt er dependence of act i vi t i es and per sons

i nvol ved. " Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d at 190 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t nez- Medi na, 279 F. 3d 105,

-16-


17/28

113- 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "The j ur y may i nf er an agr eement

ci r cumst ant i al l y by evi dence of , i nt er al i a, a common pur pose

. . . , over l ap of par t i ci pant s, and i nt er dependence of var i ous

el ement s i n t he over al l pl an. ") .

A def endant need not know t he f ul l ext ent of t he

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy or t he i dent i t i es of al l t he

coconspi r at or s to be convi ct ed. See Or t i z de J ess, 230 F. 3d

at 5. Fur t her , a def endant may be f ound t o be a par t of t he

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy - - despi t e a l ack of par t i ci pat i on i n

t he dr ug col l ect i on, handl i ng, or sal es - - based upon per f or mance

of anci l l ar y f unct i ons ( e. g. , account i ng, communi cat i ons, and

st r ong- ar m enf or cement ) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Tor r es, 280

F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773 F. 3d at

311 ( " [ E] ach coconspi r at or need not know of or have cont act wi t h

al l ot her member s, nor must t hey know al l of t he det ai l s of t he

conspi r acy or par t i ci pat e i n ever y act i n f ur t her ance of i t . "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . However , "i t i s har d t o

i magi ne how someone f ur ni shi ng a per i pheral ser vi ce to a dr ug

conspi r acy coul d be deemed t o ' j oi n' t hat conspi r acy unl ess he knew

bot h t hat t he dr ug conspi r acy exi st ed and t hat t he per i pher al

servi ce bei ng f ur ni shed was desi gned t o f ost er t he conspi r acy. "

Gar c a- Tor r es, 280 F. 3d at 4 ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . Wi t h t hat

backgr ound i n pl ace, we t ur n t o t he i ndi vi dual Def endant s.

A. Santos

-17-


18/28

As noted above, t he evi dence showed t hat Sant os was i n

char ge of undercover agent Rodr guez, who was t ol d by Hernndez

t hat t he t wo ounces of cocai ne f r om t he Febr uar y i nci dent wer e

pur chased f r om Aqui no. Al t hough Sant os was wi t h Pl aza and other

agent s i n t he gener al vi ci ni t y dur i ng t he Febr uar y i nci dent , she

di d not see t he al l eged " t r ansact i on" t ake pl ace. Sant os di d

submi t t he dr ugs r el at ed t o t he Febr uar y i nci dent t o t he l abor at or y

f or t est i ng. She al so assi gned t he ar r est war r ant s r el at ed t o t he

Febr uar y i nci dent t o Gonzl ez- Vl ez and, i n conj unct i on wi t h ot her

of f i cer s, devel oped t he pl an f or t he buy- bust oper at i on of J ul y 5.

I n r el at i on t o t he J ul y i nci dent , t he evi dence showed

t hat Hernndez once agai n t ol d Rodr guez t hat he had pur chased

f i f t y baggi es of cocai ne f r om Aqui no, and t hat at t he t i me of t he

al l eged t r ansact i on Sant os was i n t he same pol i ce car as Pl aza and

ot her agent s, and t hey wer e i n t he gener al vi ci ni t y.

Whi l e at some poi nt Sant os l ear ned t hat t he dr ugs had not

been sei zed f r om Aqui no' s per son, she st i l l i nst r uct ed Gonzl ez-

Vl ez t o l i e t o t he di st r i ct at t or ney and t el l hi mt hat t hey had i n

f act been sei zed f r om Aqui no at t he t i me of hi s ar r est . She al so

encour aged Gonzl ez- Vl ez sever al t i mes t o st i ck to t hi s l i e.

Sant os al l eges t hat t hi s evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent f or a

r easonabl e j ur y t o concl ude beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat she had

knowl edge of t he conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances and

knowi ngl y and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n i t . We agr ee.

-18-


19/28

The t r i al t est i mony r eveal ed t hat Her nndez never

di scl osed t hat he had got t en t he dr ugs f r om someone ot her t han

Aqui no or Gonzl ez- Medi na, and t he government of f ered no evi dence

f r omwhi ch t o i nf er t hat Sant os knew t hat t he dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he

Febr uar y or J ul y i nci dent s came f r omsomeone ot her t han Aqui no. I n

f act , at or al ar gument t he gover nment st at ed t hat i t coul d not

poi nt t o any evi dence demonst r at i ng t hat Sant os di d not bel i eve

t hat Aqui no was t he real sour ce of t he dr ugs.

As evi dence suppor t i ng Sant os' s Count 2 convi ct i on, t he

government poi nt s most st r ongl y t o Sant os' s encour agement of

Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o l i e t o t he di st r i ct att or ney by t el l i ng hi mt hat

he had sei zed t he dr ugs f r om Aqui no. I n f act , when asked at or al

argument about t he scant evi dence agai nst Sant os support i ng her

Count 2 convi ct i on, t he gover nment st at ed t hat "Sant os j oi ned t he

conspi r acy l at e, when she asked [ Gonzl ez- Vl ez] t o l i e. "

Accor di ng t o the gover nment , by so doi ng Sant os " t aci t l y agr eed t o

j oi n t he conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i ntent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed

subst ances. " I n f act , t he gover nment st at ed at or al ar gument t hat

Sant os' s encour agement of Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o l i e to t he di st r i ct

at t orney was t he "onl y evi dence" of Sant os' s knowl edge about t he

di st r i but i on of cont r ol l ed subst ances.

I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat a def endant need not know t he

f ul l ext ent of a conspi r acy, t he i dent i t y of al l t he

coconspi r at or s, may j oi n t he conspi r acy l at e, and par t i ci pat e i n

-19-


20/28

onl y anci l l ar y f unct i ons. See Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o- Ben quez, 356

F. 3d 1, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; Gar c a- Tor r es, 280 F. 3d at 4; Or t i z de

J ess, 230 F. 3d at 5. However , a def endant must know t hat a

conspi r acy exi st s and t hat hi s par t i ci pat i on, even i f l i mi t ed t o a

per i pher al ser vi ce, i s desi gned t o f ost er t hat conspi r acy.

Gar c a- Tor r es, 280 F. 3d at 4. Her e, t he evi dence shows t hat Sant os

encour aged Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o l i e t o t he di st r i ct at t or ney r egar di ng

t he sei zur e of t he dr ugs. Al t hough t hi s and ot her evi dence coul d

be suf f i ci ent t o f i nd "a conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he ci vi l r i ght s of

t he vi ct i ms by pr ovi di ng f al se evi dence t o the Commonweal t h

Cour t s, " ( Count 1) t hi s evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove t hat

Sant os knew of t he conspi r acy to di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances

and el ect ed t o j oi n i t i nt endi ng t hat t he under l yi ng of f ense be

commi t t ed ( Count 2) . Sant os' s knowl edge of a conspi r acy t o possess

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances cannot be based

onl y on her knowl edge of a di f f er ent conspi r acy - - t he conspi r acy

t o vi ol at e t he ci vi l r i ght s of vi ct i ms.

By the same t oken, al t hough Sant os submi t t ed t he dr ugs t o

t he I nst i t ut e of For ensi c Sci ence f or t est i ng, t hi s does not l ead

t o a r easonabl e concl usi on t hat she was di st r i but i ng t he dr ugs i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. "[ I ] t i s har d t o i magi ne how

someone f ur ni shi ng a per i pher al servi ce t o a dr ug conspi r acy coul d

be deemed t o ' j oi n' t hat conspi r acy unl ess he knew bot h t hat t he

-20-


21/28

dr ug conspi r acy exi st ed and t hat t he per i pher al servi ce bei ng

f ur ni shed was desi gned t o f ost er t he conspi r acy. " I d.

Wi t hout evi dence f r om whi ch t he j ur y coul d i nf er beyond

a reasonabl e doubt t hat Sant os knew of t he conspi r acy t o possess

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances, Sant os' s

convi ct i on on Count 2 cannot st and.

B. Plaza

The r ecor d shows t hat on J ul y 5, 2007, Eggy and Tut i gave

Her nndez f i f t y baggi es of cocai ne t o pl ant on Aqui no. On t hat

same dat e, Pl aza cal l ed Her nndez and i nst r uct ed hi m t o buy f i f t y

baggi es of cocai ne f r omAqui no. Upon hi s ar r i val at Aqui no' s house

af t er Gonzl ez- Vl ez had ar r est ed Aqui no, Pl aza asked Gonzl ez-

Vl ez f or t he "bundl e" of dr ugs and, once Gonzl ez- Vl ez gave hi m

t he dr ugs, Pl aza conf r ont ed Aqui no st at i ng, "Thi s i s your s. " Some

t i me l at er at t he pol i ce st at i on, when Gonzl ez- Vl ez asked Pl aza

how t o submi t t he case t o t he di st r i ct at t or ney because t he dr ugs

had not been sei zed f r om Aqui no' s per son, Pl aza i nst r uct ed

Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o l i e t o t he di st r i ct at t or ney and cl ai m t hat t he

dr ugs had i n f act been sei zed f r om Aqui no' s per son. The t r i al

evi dence al so showed t hat t her e was a spi ke i n t el ephone cal l s

bet ween Pl aza, Eggy, and Tut i on t he days bef or e, of , and f ol l owi ng

bot h t he Febr uar y and J ul y i nci dent s, when t he t hr ee agent s wer e i n

const ant communi cat i on and had numer ous r el at i vel y cont empor aneous

t el ephone cal l s.

-21-


22/28

Pl aza cont ends t hat t hi s evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent f or a

r at i onal j ur y t o concl ude t hat he i s gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e

doubt of havi ng par t i ci pat ed i n t he dr ug conspi r acy. He al l eges

t hat t he f act t hat he i nst r uct ed Her nndez t o buy f r om Aqui no t he

exact amount of cocai ne pr ovi ded by Eggy and Tut i i s not i ndi cat i ve

t hat he was par t of t he dr ug conspi r acy. Pl aza al so cl ai ms t hat

t he t el ephone cal l s bet ween hi m, Eggy, and Tut i wer e unr el at ed t o

t he al l eged conspi r acy, as t hey al l wor ked t oget her , knew each

other f or years and communi cated f r equent l y f or busi ness and

per sonal r easons. Pl aza f ur t her ar gues t hat t he t est i mony f r omhi s

t wo wi t nesses cont r adi ct s t he test i mony of one of t he gover nment ' s

mai n wi t nesses. Fi nal l y, he cl ai ms t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

cal l Aqui no and Gonzl ez- Medi na - - t he vi ct i ms - - t o t est i f y i n

t hi s case, and t o br i ng char ges agai nst Eggy and Tut i , t he dr ug

suppl i er s. Hi s cont ent i ons l ack mer i t .

Vi ewi ng t he di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he gui l t y ver di ct , a r easonabl e j ur y coul d

concl ude t hat Pl aza knowi ngl y and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he

conspi r acy and i nt ended to commi t t he under l yi ng subst ant i ve

of f ense. See Mena- Robl es, 4 F. 3d at 1031 ( ar t i cul at i ng t he

r equi r ement s t o convi ct a def endant of conspi r acy as t he i nt ent " t o

agr ee and t o commi t t he subst ant i ve of f ense t hat was t he obj ect of

t he agr eement " ) . Such knowi ng and vol unt ar y par t i ci pat i on and

i nt ent ar e demonst r at ed by Pl aza' s act i ons and wor ds dur i ng bot h

-22-


23/28

i nci dent s. See i d. ( "[ J ] ur i es ar e not r equi r ed t o exami ne t he

evi dence i n i sol at i on, f or i ndi vi dual pi eces of evi dence,

i nsuf f i ci ent i n t hemsel ves t o pr ove a poi nt , may i n cumul at i on

pr ove i t . The sum of an evi dent i ar y pr esent at i on may wel l be

gr eat er t han i t s const i t uent par t s. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Or t i z, 966 F. 2d 707, 711 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) ) . Ther e was evi dence

t hat on t he days bef or e, of , and af t er t he t wo i nci dent s, Pl aza was

i n const ant communi cat i on wi t h Eggy and Tut i vi a t hei r per sonal

t el ephones, and t hat Pl aza i ni t i at ed a si gni f i cant amount of t hese

cal l s. Thi s, even t hough Tut i and Eggy wor ked i n a di f f er ent ar ea

wi t hi n t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce - - t he Ar eci bo I l l egal Weapons Uni t

- - and t hey wer e not i nvol ved i n t he pl anned buy- bust oper at i on

t hat was bei ng conduct ed by t he Ar eci bo Dr ug Di vi si on. Not onl y

wer e Pl aza' s t el ephone cal l s wi t h Eggy and Tut i const ant dur i ng

t hose days, but t he t el ephone cal l s bet ween t he t hr ee of t hemwer e

al so rel at i vel y cont emporaneous, wi t h many t i mes t wo of t he agent s

f i ni shi ng a conver sat i on and i mmedi at el y cal l i ng t he t hi r d agent .

The evi dence al so showed t hat Pl aza ot her wi se r ar el y had t el ephone

conver sat i ons wi t h ei t her Tut i or Eggy, and t hat t he recor ds onl y

showed a spi ke i n cal l s bet ween t hem ar ound t he t wo i nci dent s.

Fur t hermore, t here was evi dence t hat on t he day of t he pl anned buy-

bust oper at i on, al l communi cat i ons r el at ed t o the oper at i on wer e

made over a dedi cated pol i ce r adi o f r equency and not over t he

agent s' per sonal t el ephones. I n addi t i on, t he evi dence showed t hat

-23-


24/28

Pl aza i nst r uct ed Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o l i e t o t he di st r i ct at t or ney and

cl ai m t hat t he dr ugs had i n f act been sei zed f r om Aqui no, despi t e

bei ng r epeat edl y t ol d by Gonzl ez- Vl ez t hat t hi s was not t r ue.

When vi ewed as a sumof t he evi dent i ar y pr esent at i on, a reasonabl e

i nf er ence coul d be dr awn t hat Pl aza had no l egi t i mat e, wor k- r el at ed

r eason t o be i n const ant communi cat i on wi t h Eggy and Tut i around

t he days of t he t wo i nci dent s - - much l ess usi ng t hei r per sonal

t el ephones - - and t hat hi s unusual l y f r equent and r el at i vel y

cont emporaneous t el ephone cal l s wi t h Tut i and Eggy show t hat he was

awar e of t he "essent i al nat ur e" of t he conspi r acy and i nt ended t o

commi t t he subst ant i ve of f ense i n t hat he pl anned t o pl ant t hose

drugs on Aqui no. 14 See Uni t ed St ates v. Geer , 923 F. 2d 892, 894

( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

Pl aza poi nt s out t hat t he gover nment di d not pr ovi de

evi dence as t o t he cont ent of t he t el ephone conver sat i ons, and t hat

i t di d not pr ove t hat t her e was a subst ant i al number of cal l s made

around t he t i me of t he t wo i nci dent s, compared wi t h t he cal l s made

dur i ng ot her mont hs pr i or t o or subsequent t o t he dat es of t he

i nci dent s. Pl aza f ur t her cl ai ms that he knew Tut i and Eggy f or

14 I n r eachi ng our concl usi on, we do not r el y on t he f i f t y- baggi escongr uence or on Pl aza' s " t hi s i s your s" comment , si nce we do notf i nd t hat t hey have any i ncul pat or y wei ght under t he ci r cumst ancesof t hi s case.

-24-


25/28

year s as cowor ker s and t hus t he t hr ee of t hem f r equent l y

communi cat ed f or both personal and busi ness r easons. 15

Cont r ar y t o Pl aza' s asser t i ons, t he gover nment di d

i nt r oduce tel ephone r ecor ds t hat ext ended beyond t he dates of t he

t wo i nci dent s. The t el ephone r ecor ds of Eggy and Tut i encompassed

al l t el ephone cal l s t o and f r om t hei r t el ephones f or t he ent i r e

mont hs of Febr uary, J une, J ul y, and Sept ember 2007. A r evi ew of

t hese t el ephone r ecor ds cl ear l y reveal ed an unusual spi ke i n

t el ephone cal l s bet ween Pl aza and t he dr ug suppl i ers on t he days

bef or e, of , and f ol l owi ng bot h i nci dent s. I n any event , t he i ssue

on r evi ew i s not whet her t her e exi st s an i nnocent expl anat i on; t he

i ssue i s whether when exami ni ng the evi dence as a whol e t he j ur y

coul d r easonabl y r ej ect t hat expl anat i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Fl oyd,

740 F. 3d 22, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Pl aza f ur t her ar gues t hat t he t est i moni es of hi s t wo

wi t nesses - - Fel i ci ano and Cent eno - - cont r adi ct t he test i mony of

one of t he government ' s mai n wi t nesses. However , t he j ur y hear d

t he t est i mony of al l t he wi t nesses and made i t s cr edi bi l i t y

determi nat i ons. On appeal , we cannot r e- wei gh t he evi dence or

second- guess t he j ur y' s cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons. 16 See Tr i ni dad-

15 I n i t s br i ef , t he gover nment poi nt ed out t hat "absol ut el y noevi dence was produced r egar di ng t he l engt h of t i me [ Eggy, Tut i , andPl aza] knew each other , where t hey l i ved, or whether t hey hadf r equent per sonal or busi ness communi cat i ons. "

16 Fur t her mor e, af t er a car ef ul r evi ew of t he r ecor d we di sagr eet hat any such cont r adi ct i ons exi st .

-25-


26/28

Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 310- 11 ( "We do not assess t he cr edi bi l i t y of a

wi t ness, as t hat i s a r ol e r eser ved f or t he j ur y. " ( quot i ng Tr oy,

583 F. 3d at 24) ) ; Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d at 191 ( " [ T]hough we

exerci se de novo revi ew, we can nei t her r e- wei gh t he evi dence nor

second- guess t he j ur y' s credi bi l i t y cal l s. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Ayal a- Gar c a, 574 F. 3d 5, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ T] he j ur y [i s] f r ee

t o choose whi ch of t he t wo conf l i ct i ng account s of t he event s t o

bel i eve, so l ong as t he evi dence vi ewed i n t he gover nment ' s f avor

i s adequat e t o est abl i sh gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " ) .

Fi nal l y, we decl i ne Pl aza' s i nvi t at i on t o f i nd t he

evi dence i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on because t he

gover nment di d not cal l al l possi bl e wi t nesses t o t est i f y, or

i ncl ude i n t he i ndi ct ment ot her coconspi r at or s. When we assess

t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence suppor t i ng a convi ct i on, we must

f ocus on t he evi dence act ual l y submi t t ed at t r i al . See Tr i ni dad-

Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 310- 11; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Guzmn- Mont aez, 756 F. 3d 1, 12 (1st Ci r . 2014) ( emphasi zi ng that

what mat t er s i s t he evi dence i nt r oduced at t r i al ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Gar c a, 758 F. 3d 714, 721- 22 ( 6t h Ci r . 2014) ( hol di ng t hat i n

eval uat i ng a suf f i ci ency- of - t heevi dence chal l enge "we may not

consi der t he pot ent i al magni t ude of t he evi dence not pr esent ed, "

because doi ng so woul d be "an i nvi t at i on t o exami ne whether t he

Gover nment mi ght have pr esented a more convi nci ng case, not whet her

-26-


27/28

i t i n f act pr esent ed a suf f i ci ent one") . 17 Because t he basi s f or

t he j ur y ver di ct i s t he evi dence t hat was submi t t ed f or i t s

consi der at i on, we do not consi der t he magni t ude of addi t i onal

evi dence t hat coul d have been pr esent ed i n determi ni ng whether t he

evi dence t hat was act ual l y submi t t ed was suf f i ci ent t o convi ct t he

def endant . Nor do we t ake i nt o consi der at i on t hat cer t ai n

i ndi vi dual s wer e not i ndi ct ed, as t hat i s a mat t er wi t hi n t he sol e

di scr et i on of t he pr osecut i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ni xon, 418

U. S. 683, 693 ( 1974) ( not i ng that "Execut i ve Br anch has excl usi ve

aut hor i t y and absol ut e di scr et i on t o deci de whet her t o pr osecut e a

case") . And, her e, we concl ude t hat t he sum of al l t he evi dence

and t he i nf er ences drawn t her ef r om, especi al l y t he evi dence of

Pl aza' s t el ephone communi cat i ons wi t h Eggy and Tut i , t he dr ug

suppl i er s, and t he evi dence t hat he i nst r uct ed Gonzl ez- Vl ez t o

f al sel y submi t t he case t o t he l ocal di st r i ct at t or ney, i s

suf f i ci ent ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat Pl aza was awar e of , and

knowi ngl y par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances. See Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d at 30 ( The

cour t ' s " f ocus must be on t he evi dence as a whol e. . . . [ and] [ i ] t

suf f i ces i f t he concl usi ons t hat t he j ur y dr aws f r omt he evi dence,

al t hough not i nevi t abl e, ar e r easonabl e. " ) . Whi l e t he concl usi on

17 Mor eover , we have r epeat edl y st at ed t hat " [ t ] est i mony f r omevenj ust ' one wi t ness can suppor t a convi ct i on. ' " Uni t ed Stat es v.Al ej andr o- Mont aez, 778 F. 3d 352, 357 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ngUni t ed St at es v. De La Paz- Rent as, 613 F. 3d 18, 25 ( 1st Ci r .2010) ) .

-27-


28/28

t hat Pl aza knew of t he dr ug conspi r acy and par t i ci pat ed i n i t

i nt endi ng t hat t he under l yi ng subst ant i ve of f ense be commi t t ed may

not be i nevi t abl e based on t he evi dence, i t soundl y r est s on

suf f i ci ent evi dence. Thus, Pl aza' s convi ct i on on Count 2 i s

af f i r med.

III. Conclusion

The evi dence submi t t ed at t r i al t o suppor t Santos' s

convi ct i on on Count 2 was i nsuf f i ci ent f or a r easonabl e j ur y t o

concl ude beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat she had knowl edge of t he

dr ug conspi r acy and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n i t , i nt endi ng t hat

t he under l yi ng subst ant i ve of f ense be commi t t ed. Thus, Sant os' s

convi ct i on on Count 2 i s reversed. I n cont r ast , t hi s evi dence,

whi ch i ncl uded act s speci f i cal l y at t r i but ed t o Pl aza, was

suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n Pl aza' s convi ct i on as t o t he same Count 2.

Ther ef or e, Pl aza' s convi ct i on on Count 2 i s affirmed.

-28-

united states v. plaza-santiago, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents