united states v. rosario-camacho, 1st cir. (2015)
Post on 02-Mar-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
1/35
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
Nos. 10- 197410- 204210- 205510- 205710- 2129
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,
Appel l ee,
v.
J OS NEGRN- SOSTRE;LUI S RODR GUEZ- SOSTRE;J OSU PREZ- MERCADO;
RAMN MAYSONET- SOLER; andWI LFREDO ROSARI O- CAMACHO,
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. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or eTor r uel l a, Li pez, and Thompson,
Ci r cui t J udges.
I gnaci o Fer nndez- de Lahongr ai s f or J os Negr n- Sost r e.J or ge E. Ri ver a- Or t i z f or Lui s Rodr guez- Sost r e.
Al l i son J . Kour y f or J osu Pr ez- Mer cado.J uan J os Her nndez- Lpez de Vi ct or i a, wi t h whom Her nndez-Lpez de Vi ct or i a, PSC was on br i ef , f or Ramn Maysonet - Sol er .
J udi t h H. Mi zner , Assi st ant Federal Publ i c Def ender , f orWi l f r edo Rosar i o- Camacho.
Ol ga B. Cast el l n- Mi r anda, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,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, and Ti f f any V. Monr ose, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
2/35
At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.
J une 25, 2015
-2-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
3/35
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
4/35
f i r st t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o establ i sh t hei r gui l t beyond a
r easonabl e doubt .
I.
Background1
Fr om 2001 t o J une 2008, a dr ug market pl ace operat ed
t went y- f our hour s a day, seven days a week at "La Qui nce, " a st r eet
i n Al t os de Cuba. I t was qui t e an oper at i on. Wi t h al l t he
conveni ence of a super market , La Qui nce of f er ed one- st op shoppi ng
f or a number of di f f er ent "brands" of cocai ne, her oi n, cr ack
cocai ne, mar i j uana, oxycodone and al pr azol am. 2 Some of t he
pr oduct s wer e col or f ul l y packaged, ot her s had cat chy names l i ke
"Godzi l l a" or "Bi n Laden, " no doubt i nt ended t o i nspi r e br and
l oyal t y i n di scerni ng users. The savvy mar ket er s at La Qui nce even
di st r i but ed f r ee sampl es of new dr ug bat ches. Per haps i n an
at t empt t o appeal t o t he yout h market , La Qui nce was l ocat ed wi t hi n
1, 000 f eet of a publ i c school . I n shor t , Wal mar t had not hi ng on La
Qui nce.
1Thi s ci r cui t ' s appr oach t o pr esent i ng t he f act s has beeni nconsi st ent when addr essi ng chal l enges ot her t han t o t hesuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Sol er ,773 F. 3d 289, 290 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . We wi l l pr ovi de addi t i onal
backgr ound when we addr ess appel l ant s' suf f i ci ency chal l enge al i t t l e l at er , but t o pr ovi de some i ni t i al backgr ound her e f or t heSi xt h Amendment chal l enge, we pr esent an obj ect i ve vi ew of t heevi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Nel son- Rodr guez, 319 F. 3d 12, 13( 1st Ci r . 2003) .
2Al pr azol am i s t he gener i c name f or Xanax.
-4-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
5/35
Li ke any pr osper ous r et ai l er , La Qui nce had a
sophi st i cat ed suppl y chai n i n pl ace t o speed i nvent or y f r omst or age
t o cl i ent el e. Runner s wer e r esponsi bl e f or st or i ng t he dr ugs and
suppl yi ng t hem t o t he sel l er s as needed. Sel l er s, as t he name
i mpl i es, sol d t he dr ugs t o t he i ndi vi dual user s and gave t he
pr oceeds t o t he runner s, who del i ver ed t he cash t o t hose at t he top
of t he chai n, t he owner s of each i ndi vi dual br and of dr ug.
I t i s t he owner s who ar e t he subj ect of t hi s appeal . I n
Sept ember 2008, sevent y- f our i ndi vi dual s wer e i ndi ct ed f or t hei r
i nvol vement wi t h the dr ug conspi r acy cent er ed i n Al t os de Cuba.
Among t hem wer e t he appel l ant s: J os Negr n- Sost r e ( "Negr n-
Sost r e") , Lui s Rodr guez- Sost r e ( "Rodr guez- Sost r e") , J osu Pr ez-
Mercado ( "Pr ez- Mercado") , Ramn Maysonet - Sol er ( "Maysonet - Sol er" ) ,
and Wi l f r edo Rosar i o- Camacho ( "Rosar i o- Camacho") . Each of t he
appel l ant s was char ged wi t h si x count s: conspi r acy t o possess wi t h
t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e nar cot i cs3 wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of a school
( Count I ) ; ai di ng and abet t i ng i n t he possessi on wi t h t he i nt ent t o
di st r i but e her oi n, cr ack cocai ne, cocai ne, and mar i j uana ( Count s
I I - V) ; and conspi r acy t o car r y and use f i r ear ms dur i ng and i n
r el at i on t o dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cri mes ( Count VI ) .
3Speci f i cal l y, Count I char ged t he appel l ant s wi t h conspi r acyt o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e: her oi n, cr ack cocai ne,cocai ne, mar i j uana, oxycodone and al pr azol am i n vi ol at i on of 21U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846 and 860.
-5-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
6/35
A j ury t r i al commenced i n J anuar y 2010. Thr ee mont hs
l at er , t he j ur y f ound t he appel l ant s gui l t y of Count s I t hr ough V.
On Count VI , t he gun char ge, t he j ur y convi ct ed Rodr guez- Sost r e,
Maysonet - Sol er and Rosar i o- Camacho, but f ound Negr n- Sost r e and
Pr ez- Mer cado not gui l t y. The appel l ant s t i mel y appeal ed, and i n
March 2011 t hey moved t o suppl ement t he recor d, al l egi ng that t hey
wer e deni ed t hei r r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al when t hei r f ami l y member s
wer e excl uded f r om t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y voi r di r e.
On J ul y 6, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d an evi dent i ar y
hear i ng to det er mi ne whet her t he publ i c had been excl uded f r omt he
cour t r oom i n vi ol at i on of t he def endant s' Si xt h Amendment r i ght s.
I n December 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued a memorandum and
f i ndi ngs of f act , concl udi ng i n summar y t hat "[ n] o speci f i c
evi dence was ever pr esent ed, . . . t hat demonst r at ed t hat [ a]
supposed l ong st andi ng di st r i ct pol i cy of not al l owi ng t he publ i c
i nt o t he cour t r oom dur i ng voi r di r e was ever f ol l owed i n t hi s
case. "
II.
Discussion
Al l of t he def endant s ar gue t hat t hei r convi ct i ons
shoul d be rever sed and t hei r cases r emanded f or a new t r i al because
t hei r Si xt h Amendment r i ght s were vi ol at ed because members of t he
-6-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
7/35
publ i c wer e excl uded dur i ng j ur y voi r di r e. 4 Negr n- Sost r e,
Rodr guez- Sost r e and Maysonet - Sol er al so chal l enge the suf f i ci ency
of t he evi dence suppor t i ng t hei r convi ct i ons on some, but not al l ,
of t he charges. 5 They make a number of ot her cl ai ms of er r or , but
because t hey ar e not r el evant i n l i ght of our ul t i mat e r ul i ng
vacat i ng t hei r convi ct i ons and r emandi ng f or a new t r i al , we need
not r each t he r emai nder of t hese ar gument s. 6
A.
The Sixth Amendment Right to a Public Trial
The f ai l ur e t o hol d a publ i c t r i al i s a st r uct ur al er r or
t hat " i nf ect [ s] t he ent i r e t r i al pr ocess. " Owens, 483 F. 3d at 64
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t has
4Rosar i o- Camacho al so cont ends t hat hi s r i ght t o a publ i ct r i al was vi ol at ed when hi s si st er was excl uded f r om t he cour t r oomdur i ng cl osi ng ar gument . Because we f i nd t hat t he cour t r oomcl osur e dur i ng t he j ur y voi r di r e r equi r es us t o vacat e and r emandf or a new t r i al , we need not r each t hi s ar gument .
5Negr n- Sost r e chal l enges t he suf f i ency of t he evi dencesuppor t i ng count s I I I , I V and V. Rodr guez- Sost r e chal l enges t hesuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence suppor t i ng count s I , I I I , V, and VI .Maysonet - Sol er chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dencesuppor t i ng count s I , I I , I I I , and V. Pr ez- Mer cado and Rosar i o-Camacho do not chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence suppor t i ngt hei r convi cti ons.
6Def endant s' ot her cl ai ms of er r or ar e: t he di st r i ct cour t ' sr ef usal t o gi ve a r equest ed mul t i pl e conspi r acy j ur y i nst r uct i on;t he admi ssi on of evi dence of pr i or bad act s; j ur y t ai nt and bi as;
i mposi t i on of sent ences t hat wer e pr ocedur al l y and subst ant i vel yunr easonabl e; pr osecut or i al mi sconduct ; t he cour t ' s deci si onal l owi ng a gover nment wi t ness t o r ef r esh hi s memory by r eadi ng f r oma document ; r equi r i ng a wi t ness' s pr i or st at ement s t o be under oat hf or i mpeachment pur poses; and l i mi t i ng def ense counsel ' s abi l i t y t oef f ect i vel y cr oss- exami ne wi t nesses t o show bi as, mot i ve ori nt er est.
-7-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
8/35
been "pr i st i nel y cl ear t hat t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a publ i c
t r i al ext ends t o t he j ur y voi r di r e pr ocess. " Agost o- Vega, 617
F. 3d at 546 ( ci t i ng Pr esl ey v. Geor gi a, 558 U. S. 209, 213 ( 2010) ) .
That i s so because " [ j ] ur y sel ect i on i s t he pr i mar y means by whi ch
a cour t may enf or ce a def endant ' s r i ght t o be t r i ed by a j ur y f r ee
f r omet hni c, r aci al , or pol i t i cal pr ej udi ce . . . or pr edi sposi t i on
about t he def endant ' s cul pabi l i t y . . . . " Owens, 483 F. 3d at 63
( f i r st and second al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Gmez v. Uni t ed
St at es, 490 U. S. 858, 873 ( 1989) ) . I n Wal l er v. Geor gi a, 467 U. S.
39, 48 ( 1984) , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat , t o avoi d commi t t i ng
st r uctur al er r or , cour t r oom cl osur es must be j ust i f i ed by an
over r i di ng i nt er est and t ai l or ed t o be "no br oader t han necessary
t o pr ot ect t hat i nt er est . " The def endant s cont end t hat t he
di st r i ct cour t er r ed when t he publ i c was unj ust i f i abl y excl uded
f r om t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y voi r di r e.
Because def endant s di d not obj ect t o t he excl usi on at t he
t i me of t r i al , "we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or . "7 Uni t ed St ates v.
Scot t , 564 F. 3d 34, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Under pl ai n- er r or r evi ew,
t he def endant s have " t he bur den of showi ng (1) t hat an er r or
occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y ( 3)
af f ect ed [ t hei r ] substant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y
i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al
7We note t hat t he gover nment di d not argue t hat t he f ai l ur e t oobj ect const i t ut es wai ver and, i ndeed, t he gover nment ur ges us t oappl y t he pl ai n er r or st andar d.
-8-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
9/35
pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Al mont e- Nuez, 771 F. 3d 84, 89 ( 1st
Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
Was there Clear or Obvious Error?
I n order t o determi ne whether an er r or occur r ed, we must
f i r st det er mi ne whet her , cont r ar y t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs,
t her e was, i n f act , a cour t r oom cl osur e. The r el evant event s of
t he J anuar y 20, 2010 j ur y sel ect i on wer e t he subj ect of an
evi dent i ary hear i ng bef ore t he same j udge who pr esi ded over t he
t r i al . Fol l owi ng t hi s hear i ng, t he di str i ct cour t essent i al l y
det er mi ned no cour t r oom cl osi ng had occur r ed - - a f i ndi ng t he
def endant s chal l enge on appeal . We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s
f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or . 8 Bucci v. Uni t ed St at es, 662
F. 3d 18, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Under cl ear er r or r evi ew, we def er t o
t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs unl ess "t he r ecor d, r ead as a whol e,
gi ves r i se t o a st r ong, unyi el di ng bel i ef t hat a mi st ake has been
made. " Uni t ed St ates v. Hughes, 640 F. 3d 428, 434 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We wi l l summar i ze t he r ecor d
of t hat hear i ng, as wel l as t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act.
Cour t r oom Secur i t y Of f i cer ( "CSO") Car l os Si er r a- Medi na
( "Si er r a- Medi na") had been a CSO f or ni neteen year s and was on dut y
i n t he cour t r oom dur i ng voi r di r e. He t est i f i ed t o t he r egul ar
pr act i ce of t he cour t pr i or t o 2010, sayi ng " t he t endency was t hat ,
8As al ways, l egal concl usi ons ar e r evi ewed de novo. Bucci v.Uni t ed St at es, 662 F. 3d 18, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .
-9-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
10/35
because of t he space and secur i t y, t he f ami l y wi l l not be al l owed"
t o be i n t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y sel ect i on. Si er r a- Medi na
t est i f i ed t hat t hi s pr act i ce was f ol l owed unl ess an at t or ney made
a pr evi ous speci al ar r angement wi t h t he j udge; f or i nst ance one
such ar r angement i n an ear l i er case i nvol ved br i ngi ng addi t i onal
chai r s i nt o t he cour t r oom f or f ami l y member s. He di d not r ecal l
any change i n t hi s " t endency" af t er t he publ i cat i on of our deci si on
i n Agost o- Vega. 9
Deput y U. S. Mar shal Mi guel Por t al at n t est i f i ed t hat he
was i n char ge of secur i t y f or t he t r i al and t hat he "di dn' t get any
speci f i c i nst r uct i ons f r om [ t he j udge] as f ar as cl osi ng t he door
or l eavi ng t he door open. " He st ated t hat he never gave any order s
t o keep peopl e out of t he cour t r oom because "we di dn' t have space,
so I di dn' t have t o t el l anybody. " Al t hough t he door was not
l ocked, and j ur or s exi t ed f r eel y when r el eased, Por t al at n di d not
r ecal l seei ng any f ami l y member s i n t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y
sel ecti on.
Def endant Rosar i o- Camacho' s s i st er , Mar i bel Rodr guez,
t est i f i ed t hat she at t empt ed t o ent er t he cour t r oomon t he mor ni ng
of j ur y sel ect i on and was asked by someone, " i t coul d be secur i t y
9I n Uni t ed St at es v. Agost o- Vega, 617 F. 3d 541, 543 ( 1st Ci r .2010) , we hel d t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t of Puer t o Ri co "commi t t ed ast r uct ur al er r or by excl udi ng t he publ i c f r omt he cour t r oomdur i ngt he sel ect i on of t he j ur y. " Our deci si on i ssued i n August 2010,ei ght mont hs af t er t he t r i al i n t hi s case, but near l y a year pr i ort o t he cour t ' s evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he cour t r oom cl osur e i ssue.
-10-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
11/35
of f i cer s, mar shal s, st andi ng i n t he door , " whet her she was a j ur or .
When she r epl i ed t hat she was a f ami l y member , she was t ol d "Okay,
wel l , f ami l y member s ar e not al l owed unt i l we' r e f i ni shed. " She
t est i f i ed t hat she t ol d her br ot her ' s at t or ney that she had not
been al l owed i n t he cour t r oom and he sai d, "Don' t wor r y, j ust wai t
i n her e, out si de. I t ' s t he pr ocedur e, f ami l y member s ar e not
al l owed unt i l we f i ni sh wi t h t he sel ect i on of t he j ur y. "
A f r i end of Rosar i o- Camacho' s, Zuhei l y Ot er o Gonzl ez,
t est i f i ed t hat she was pr esent t hat day, and t hat Si er r a- Medi na
deni ed her access t o t he cour t r oom when she asked hi m i f she coul d
ent er f or j ur y sel ect i on. She, t oo, r epor t ed t hat she spoke wi t h
Rosar i o- Camacho' s at t orney and he t ol d her she coul d not go i nt o
t he cour t r oom because "i t was a pr act i ce car r i ed out i n Puer t o
Ri co; t hat i t was a pr ocess bet ween t he j ur y, t he codef endant s and
t he at t or neys. "
Def endant Rodr guez- Sost r e' s wi f e t est i f i ed t hat a CSO
deni ed her ent r y i nt o t he cour t r oom on t he mor ni ng of j ur y
sel ect i on. Def endant Maysonet - Sol er ' s wi f e t est i f i ed t hat she
asked her husband' s at t or ney i f she coul d ent er t he cour t r oom and
was t ol d t hat onl y t he l awyer s, pr osecut or s, j udge, def endant s and
pot ent i al j ur or s wer e al l owed i nsi de and t hat " t hat ' s somet hi ng
t hat i s usual . " She r ecount ed t hat she t r i ed t o peek t hr ough t he
-11-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
12/35
wi ndow but t hat Si er r a- Medi na "t ol d us not t o do t hat , t hat t hat
wasn' t al l owed. " 10
Af t er t he f ami l y member s t est i f i ed, sever al of t he
def ense at t or neys t ook t he st and. Mi r i amRamos- Gr at er ol es, Pr ez-
Mer cado' s counsel , t est i f i ed t hat she had t r i ed "mor e t han 40"
cases and t hat " i t has been a pr act i ce, as f ar as I can r emember ,
t hat dur i ng j ur y sel ect i on, t he publ i c, t he f ami l y member s, ar e not
al l owed i n cour t . " When f ami l y members asked her i f t hey coul d be
pr esent , she t ol d t hem i t was not al l owed. She t est i f i ed t hat she
di d not obj ect because " [ i t ] was t he st andar d pr oceedi ng i n t hi s
cour t . " Al exander Zeno, counsel f or Maysonet - Sol er , t est i f i ed t hat
he had been an at t orney f or t en years and t hat i t was hi s
under st andi ng t hat "nobody f r om t he publ i c coul d come i nt o t he
cour t r oom" dur i ng t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocess. Li ke Ramos-
Gr at er ol es, Zeno di d not obj ect because i t was hi s under st andi ng
t hat t hi s was a common pract i ce. Ramn Gar ay- Medi na, counsel f or
Negr n- Sost r e, t est i f i ed t hat he has been pr act i ci ng i n t he
Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co si nce 1989, and t hat " [ i ] t was a mat t er of
gener al i nf ormat i on" t hat f ami l y member s wer e not al l owed i n t he
cour t r oom f or voi r di r e. He di d not obj ect because "i t was t he
10Sever al of t he f ami l y member s al so t est i f i ed t hat paper s wer eput over t he wi ndow i n t he door t o bl ock t hei r vi ew i nt o t hecour t r oom. The di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he t est i mony of CSOSi er r a- Medi na and Deput y Por t al at n i n f i ndi ng t hat no paper wasever pl aced on t he wi ndows. Because we f i nd t hat t he publ i c waspr event ed f r oment er i ng t he cour t r oom, we need not r esol ve whetherat any t i me the wi ndows were bl ocked.
-12-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
13/35
pr act i ce i n t hi s di st r i ct not t o al l ow t he f ami l y member s dur i ng
j ur y sel ect i on. " 11 Mar i angel a Ti r ado- Val es, Rodr guez- Sost r e' s
at t or ney, t est i f i ed t hat " i n al l t he j ur y sel ect i ons i n cr i mi nal
cases t hat [ she had] had so f ar i n t hi s cour t , " i t was " t he usual
pr ocess" t o keep f ami l y member s out si de. Li ke t he other at t orneys,
Ti r ado- Val es t est i f i ed t hat her f ai l ur e t o obj ect was not t he
r esul t of a t act i cal deci si on, but r ef l ect i ve of her knowl edge t hat
i t was t he "st andar d oper at i ng pr ocedur e" of t he cour t t o excl ude
f ami l y member s f r om j ur y sel ect i on. Fi nal l y, Rosar i o- Camacho' s
at t or ney, Franci sco Dol z Snchez, t est i f i ed t hat he had been
pr act i ci ng i n Puer t o Ri co si nce 1975 and t hat , si nce t hat t i me
"[ e] ver ybody was used t o t he publ i c bei ng excl uded dur i ng j ur y
sel ect i on. " Accor di ng t o Dol z Snchez, i n t he year s he' d been
pr act i ci ng, i ncl udi ng hi s "many year s" i n t he Feder al Publ i c
Def ender ' s Of f i ce, i t was st andar d oper at i ng pr ocedur e and "nobody
obj ect ed t o t hat . "
Fol l owi ng t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t made t he
f ol l owi ng f i ndi ngs of f act, per t i nent t o t hi s appeal : 1)
appr oxi mat el y sevent y- f i ve pot ent i al j ur or s wer e i n at t endance t hat
day, t aki ng up al l of t he avai l abl e seat i ng; 2) t he deput y mar shal
11On cr oss- exami nat i on, Garay- Medi na conf i r med t hat i n t heaf t er noon, because j ur ors wer e comi ng i n and out of t he cour t r oomdur i ng voi r di r e, he expr essed a concer n t o t he j udge t hat t hej ur or s mi ght not hear some of t he quest i ons. Gar ay- Medi na admi t t edt hat he r ai sed t he i ssue of seal i ng t he r oomt o pr event j ur or s f r oml eavi ng. The cour t di d not , however , gi ve an or der t o seal t hecour t r oom.
-13-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
14/35
di d not r equest aut hor i t y f r omt he cour t t o excl ude t he publ i c, t he
door s wer e not l ocked, and " t he publ i c was not excl uded f r om t he
cour t r oom due to a Cour t or der or a det er mi nat i on by t he deput y
mar shal i n char ge; " 3) f ami l y and f r i ends wer e pr esent i n t he
cour t house, but no member s of t he publ i c ent er ed t he cour t r oom and
t hose who at t empt ed t o l ook t hr ough the wi ndows i n t he cour t r oom
door wer e t ol d t o st ep away f r omt he door ; 4) nei t her t he cour t nor
t he deput y mar shal or der ed t he cour t r oom cl osed; 5) none of t he
at t or neys obj ect ed t o the cour t r oomcl osur e, and al t hough t hey al l
t est i f i ed t hat cl osi ng t he cour t r oom was st andar d pr act i ce i n t he
di st r i ct , " [ n] o speci f i c evi dence was ever pr esent ed, however , t hat
demonst r at ed t hat t hi s supposed l ong st andi ng di st r i ct pol i cy . . .
was ever f ol l owed i n t hi s case. " The di st r i ct cour t concl uded by
f i ndi ng t hat
t he f ai l ur e of t he def endant s' f ami l y member st o ent er t he cour t r oom was due t o t heat t orneys i nf ormi ng t he f ami l y members t hatt hey coul d not ent er t he cour t r oom dur i ng t hej ur y sel ect i on pr ocess, but not because of anyCour t Or der or det er mi nat i on by t he deput ymar shal i n char ge t o excl ude t he publ i c.Counsel di d not obj ect pr eci sel y because t her ewas not hi ng t o whi ch obj ect [ si c] .
I n our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs, we begi n
by not i ng t hat t he cour t di d not speci f i cal l y det er mi ne t hat t hecour t r oomwas not cl osed. I nst ead, i t f ound t hat ever y seat i n t he
cour t r oom was t aken by pot ent i al j ur or s, t he cour t r oom door s wer e
not l ocked, and " t he publ i c was not excl uded f r omt he cour t r oomdue
-14-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
15/35
t o a Cour t order or a deter mi nat i on by the deput y marshal i n
char ge. " I n f i ndi ng t hat nei t her t he cour t nor t he deput y mar shal s
had "or der ed" t he cour t r oom t o be cl osed, t he di st r i ct cour t
si dest epped t he i ssue of whet her t he cour t r oom had i n f act been
cl osed despi t e t he absence of any such order . However , t he i ssue
of whet her t her e was an act ual cour t r oom cl osure i s key because,
"even i f t he cour t r oom was cl osed because of i nat t ent i on by t he
j udge, cour t s have expressed concer n i n t he past where a cour t
of f i cer ' s unaut hor i zed cl osur e of a cour t r oom i mpeded publ i c
access. " Owens, 483 F. 3d at 63. That t he cour t r oom cl osur e was
t he r esul t of i nact i on by t he j udge, r at her t han an af f i r mat i ve
or der , i s not di sposi t i ve. I d. ( "Whet her t he cl osur e was
i nt ent i onal or i nadver t ent i s const i t ut i onal l y i r r el event . ")
( quot i ng Wal t on v. Br i l ey, 361 F. 3d 431, 433 ( 7t h Ci r . 2004) ) .
What mat t er s i s t hat t he publ i c was bar r ed. I d. ( ci t i ng Mar t i neau
v. Per r i n, 601 F. 2d 1196, 1200 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) , f or t he pr oposi t i on
t hat t he Si xt h Amendment i s i mpl i cat ed when marshal s l ock a
cour t r oom wi t hout aut hor i zat i on) .
Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t , wi t hout f i ndi ng t hat t he
cour t r oom was cl osed, bl amed t he def ense at t or neys f or " i nf or mi ng
t he f ami l y member s that t hey coul d not ent er . " Undeni abl y, t he
l awyer s wer e par t l y at f aul t . 12 However , i t woul d be a mi sr eadi ng
12Pr ez- Mer cado' s at t or ney t est i f i ed t hat she t ol d Pr ez-Mer cado' s si st er she coul d not ent er t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur ysel ect i on, and t ol d t he same t o Pr ez- Mer cado about hi s si st er .
-15-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
16/35
of t he recor d to suggest t hat t he l awyer s wer e whol l y t o bl ame.
I ndeed, t he cour t ' s f i ndi ng i gnor es CSO Si er r a- Medi na' s t est i mony
t hat t he gener al pr act i ce i n Puer t o Ri co - - i n ot her wor ds, t he
def aul t r ul e - - was t o excl ude member s of t he publ i c f r omvoi r di r e
unl ess t he at t orneys made "ar r angement s" - - t hat i s, made r equest s
i n cont r avent i on of t he gener al pr act i ce - - wi t h t he j udge
bef or ehand. 13 And i n t hi s case Si er r a- Medi na di d not r ecal l t aki ng
any act i ons t hat day that wer e cont r ar y t o t hat " t endency" t o
excl ude t he publ i c. I n t hat way, hi s t est i mony ser ves t o
cor r oborat e the test i mony of t hose f ami l y members who sai d t hat
Si er r a- Medi na had t ur ned t hem away f r om t he door , an asser t i on he
never deni ed dur i ng t he hear i ng. Hi s t est i mony makes cl ear t hat a
cour t r oom cl osur e occur r ed, accompl i shed not t hr ough l ocks and
di r ect or der s, but t hr ough t he act i ons of a CSO f ami l i ar wi t h t he
cour t ' s r egul ar pr acti ce. 14
Rosar i o- Camacho' s si st er and Rosar i o- Camacho' s f r i end eacht est i f i ed t hat Rosar i o- Camacho' s l awyer t ol d t hem t hey coul d notent er t he cour t r oom. And Maysonet - Sol er ' s wi f e t est i f i ed t hatMaysonet - Sol er ' s l awyer t ol d her t he same.
13For exampl e, Si er r a- Medi na t est i f i ed t hat , i n anot her casewher e t he r oomwas f ul l of j ur or s, t he j udge had hi mbr i ng i n ext r achai r s f or t he f ami l y.
14I n addi t i on t o CSO Si er r a- Medi na' s char act er i zat i on of t he
Puer t o Ri co cour t ' s " t endency" t o cl ose t he cour t r oom, each of t hedef ense at t or neys t est i f i ed t o t he same ( al ar mi ng) pr act i ce. Noneof t he at t or neys obj ect ed t o t he cl osur e. They t est i f i ed t hat t hi swas not due t o a t act i cal deci si on, but r at her t he r esul t of t hei rf ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he pr act i ce i n Puer t o Ri co of cl osi ng t hecour t r oom dur i ng voi r di r e. The gover nment t aci t l y admi t t ed t hi spol i cy i n a st at ement i t made dur i ng a bench conf er ence at t r i al ,
-16-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
17/35
Our r evi ew of t he r ecord convi nces us t hat t he cour t
cl ear l y er r ed i n not f i ndi ng t hat a compl et e cour t r oom cl osur e
occur r ed dur i ng j ur y sel ect i on. Mor eover , t he cl osur e was
at t r i but abl e t o cour t per sonnel at l east as much as t o t he
at t or neys. The cour t cl ear l y er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t he at t or neys
wer e whol l y r esponsi bl e f or t he f ami l y member s' excl usi on f r omvoi r
di r e. Havi ng f ound a cour t r oom cl osur e, we must now det er mi ne
whet her t hat cl osur e, absent expr ess aut hor i zat i on f r omt he j udge,
can never t hel ess pass const i t ut i onal must er .
Al t hough cour t r oom cl osur es may be j ust i f i ed i n some
ci r cumst ances, t hese cl osur es " ar e t o be r ar e and onl y f or cause
shown t hat out wei ghs t he val ue of openness. " Owens, 483 F. 3d at 61
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "[ C] l osur e of j ur y sel ect i on
t o t he publ i c f or an ent i r e day wi t hout meet i ng t he st r i ct
r equi r ement s of Wal l er woul d vi ol at e a def endant ' s r i ght t o a
publ i c t r i al . " I d. at 66. I n Bucci , we summar i zed t he Wal l er t est
as f ol l ows:
( 1) t he par t y seeki ng t o cl ose t he hear i ngmust advance an over r i di ng i nt er est t hat i sl i kel y t o be pr ej udi ced,( 2) t he cl osur e must be no br oader t hannecessar y t o pr ot ect t hat i nt er est ,( 3) t he t r i al cour t must consi der r easonabl eal t er nat i ves t o cl osi ng t he pr oceedi ng, and
when i t char act er i zed t he f act s i n Pr esl ey v. Geor gi a, 130 S. Ct .721, 724 ( 2010) , by sayi ng "t he Def endant i nvoked hi s r i ght t o apubl i c t r i al , and i t was i n a pr ocess si mi l ar t o what ' s done i nPuer t o Ri co dur i ng j ur y voi r di r e, ever yone was removed f r om t hecour t r oom. " ( emphasi s added) .
-17-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
18/35
( 4) i t must make f i ndi ngs adequate t o suppor tt he cl osur e.
662 F. 3d at 22. Gi ven t he pecul i ar post ur e of t hi s case - - wher e
no par t y af f i r mat i vel y sought t o cl ose t he cour t r oom, and wher e t he
di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y f ound t hat t her e was no cl osur e - - t he
Wal l er t est was never appl i ed. Because t he cour t r oom was i n f act
cl osed absent t he bal anci ng of i nt er est s r equi r ed by Wal l er , t hat
cl osur e was a cl ear and obvi ous er r or , sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st t wo
pr ongs of our pl ai n er r or anal ysi s.
Did the Error Affect the Defendants' Rights and the Judicial
Proceedings?
We now t ur n t o t he r emai ni ng t hi r d and f our t h pr ongs,
addr essi ng whet her t he er r or af f ect ed t he def endant s' subst ant i al
r i ght s, and whet her i t "ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y,
or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Al mont e- Nuez, 771
F. 3d at 89.Al t hough a br i ef , i nadver t ent cl osur e may be excusabl e,
t he excl usi on of t he publ i c f or t he ent i r et y of voi r di r e wi t hout
meet i ng t he Wal l er t est i s a st r uct ur al er r or . Agost o- Vega, 617
F. 3d at 543. "The cat egor y of s t r uct ur al er r or has been r eserved
f or a ver y l i mi t ed cl ass of cases" i ncl udi ng "a t ot al wi t hhol di ng
of t he r i ght t o counsel at t r i al , " and "t he spect er of a bi asedj udge. " Uni t ed St at es v. Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d 211, 219 ( 1st Ci r .
2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . St r uct ur al
er r or s, as di st i ngui shed f r omtr i al er r or s, i nf ect t he ent i r e t r i al
-18-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
19/35
pr ocess. I d. "Unl i ke t r i al r i ght s, st r uct ur al r i ght s ar e ' basi c
pr ot ect i on[ s] whose pr eci se ef f ect s ar e unmeasur abl e. ' " Owens, 483
F. 3d at 64 ( quot i ng Sul l i van v. Loui si ana, 508 U. S. 275, 281
( 1993) ) . Our pr ecedent i s unequi vocal ; st r uct ur al er r or i n t he
f or m of a deni al of t he publ i c tr i al r i ght pr ej udi ces a def endant
not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he pr ej udi ce may be di f f i cul t t o det ect . See
i d. at 65. I n Owens, we expl or ed speci f i c ways t hat such a cl osur e
may pr ej udi ce a def endant : " I t i s possi bl e t hat j ur or s mi ght have
been more f or t hcomi ng about bi ases and past exper i ences i f t hey had
f aced t he publ i c. I t i s al so possi bl e t hat [ t he par t i es] mi ght
have pi cked a mor e i mpar t i al j ur y or asked di f f er ent quest i ons wi t h
l ocal ci t i zenr y wat chi ng. " I d. Those same concer ns ar e at pl ay
her e wher e t he publ i c, i ncl udi ng t he f ami l y and f r i ends of t he
def endant s, was excl uded. Ther ef or e, i t i s cl ear on t he f act s of
t hi s case t hat t he t hi r d pr ong has been met .
I t r emai ns t hen, f or us t o det er mi ne whet her t he er r or
af f ected t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c reput at i on of t he
pr oceedi ng as a whol e. Once agai n, Owens gui des our anal ysi s. We
st at ed t her e t hat i mpr oper cour t r oomcl osur e "cal l [ s] i nt o quest i on
t he f undament al f ai r ness of [ t he] t r i al . " I d. "[ S] t r uctur al er r or
t r anscends t he cr i mi nal pr ocess by depr i vi ng a def endant of t hose
basi c pr ot ect i ons [ wi t hout whi ch] a cri mi nal t r i al cannot r el i abl y
ser ve i t s f unct i on as a vehi cl e f or det er mi nat i on of gui l t or
i nnocence, and no cr i mi nal puni shment may be r egar ded as
-19-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
20/35
f undament al l y f ai r . " Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d at 219 ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . I ndeed, gi ven t he i mpor t ance of t he
publ i c t r i al r i ght , i t woul d be har d t o see how t he publ i c
r eput at i on and i nt egr i t y of t he pr oceedi ngs woul d not be
compr omi sed i n t hi s case.
And t hat concl usi on i s not al t ered by our acknowl edgment
of t he r ol e def ense counsel cont r i but ed t o t he cl osur e. Al t hough
i t i s di st ur bi ng t o us t hat t hi s pr act i ce passed wi t hout obj ect i on
by those who seemi ngl y accept ed i t as l awf ul st at us quo i n Puer t o
Ri co, we have no r eason t o bel i eve t he at t orneys made a t act i cal
deci si on not t o obj ect ( i n or der t o "sandbag" t he cour t i nt o
creat i ng a r ever si bl e er r or ) . On t he cont r ar y, i t i s appar ent ,
gi ven t he t est i mony of Si er r a- Medi na and the def ense at t or neys, as
wel l as t he st at ement made by t he pr osecut or at si debar ( see f n.
12) , t hat t he pr act i ce of excl udi ng t he publ i c f r om voi r di r e was
al i ve and wel l i n Puer t o Ri co l ong past t he poi nt when Owens made
cl ear t hat i t was unaccept abl e. I t i s a pr act i ce whi ch however i t
got st ar t ed, coul d onl y have been sust ai ned and i mpl ement ed by t he
cour t , not by def ense at t or neys. We r ei t er at e, t he ul t i mat e
r esponsi bi l i t y of avoi di ng "even t he appear ance t hat our nat i on' s
cour t r ooms ar e cl osed or i naccessi bl e t o t he publ i c" l i es wi t h t he
j udge. Scot t , 564 F. 3d at 39. "We commend t o t he sound j udgment
of t he di str i ct cour t t he r esponsi bi l i t y, i n t he f i r st i nst ance, of
ensur i ng both openness and order , and above al l , pr eser vi ng t he
-20-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
21/35
def endant ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al . " I d. The
di str i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e i n t hi s i nstance t o pr oper l y pol i ce t he
publ i c' s access t o def endant s' j ur y voi r di r e subst ant i al l y
i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness of t he t r i al pr oceedi ngs. We f i nd t hat t he
f our t h pr ong has been met .
Summi ng up, t he cl osur e of t he cour t r oom dur i ng t he
ent i r et y of voi r di r e was a pl ai n and obvi ous er r or t hat , as a
st r uct ur al er r or , af f ect ed t he def endant s' subst ant i al r i ght s and
ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of
t he pr oceedi ngs. Our precedent compel s us t o f i nd t hat t he
st r uct ur al er r or i n t hi s case was pl ai n er r or . Accor di ngl y, we
vacate t he def endant s' convi ct i ons and r emand t hei r cases f or a new
t r i al . Agost o- Vega, 617 F. 3d at 543.
B.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Because t he def endant s wi l l now have a new t r i al on t he
same char ges, " t o pr event an al l egat i on t hat t hey wi l l be subj ect ed
t o doubl e j eopardy i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi f t h Amendment by reason of
t hi s r et r i al , i t i s i ncumbent upon us t o addr ess [ t hei r ]
cont ent i ons t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr esent suf f i ci ent
evi dence at t he f i r st t r i al " to sustai n t hei r convi ct i ons. I d.
We r evi ew chal l enges t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence
de novo, "consi der i ng al l t he evi dence, 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 pr osecut i on, dr awi ng al l
-21-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
22/35
r easonabl e i nf er ences consi st ent wi t h t he ver di ct , and avoi di ng
cr edi bi l i t y j udgment s, t o det er mi ne whet her a rat i onal j ur y coul d
have f ound t he def endant [ s] gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d.
at 548 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "Test i mony f r om even
j ust one wi t ness can suppor t a convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.
Al ej andr o- Mont aez, 778 F. 3d 352, 357 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( i nt er nal
quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .
Further Background15
Dur i ng t he t hr ee- mont h t r i al , t he j ur y hear d t est i mony
f r om sever al cooper at i ng wi t nesses who wer e i nvol ved i n t he dr ug
oper at i on, i ncl udi ng t wo r unner s and a sel l er . Al f r edo Si er r a-
Gar c a ( "Si er r a- Gar c a") t est i f i ed t hat at t he age of t hi r t een he
became a " l ookout " at La Qui nce - - a dr ug poi nt where sever al
owner s sol d dr ugs at t he same l ocat i on. Accor di ng t o Si er r a-
Garc a, La Qui nce f eat ur ed somethi ng f or every dr ug consumer :
her oi n, cocai ne, mar i j uana, and al pr azol am wer e al l on of f er . He
descr i bed how t he dr ugs wer e packaged wi t h di f f er ent br i ght l y-
col ored papers t hat cor r esponded t o a var i ety of br and names and
owner s. He t est i f i ed t hat t he l ookout s wer e necessar y t o pr event
t he l osses t he owner s woul d suf f er i f pol i ce ar r est ed a sel l er and
conf i scat ed t he dr ugs. I n t hat capaci t y, he was pai d t o war n al l
of t he sel l er s i f pol i ce wer e appr oachi ng.
15Onl y Negr n- Sost r e, Rodr guez- Sost r e, and Maysonet - Sol erchal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence.
-22-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
23/35
Si er r a- Gar c a descr i bed a hi er ar chy at La Qui nce
consi st i ng of owner s, sel l er s, r unner s, and packager s, wi t h t he
owner s at op t he pecki ng or der , f unct i oni ng as "bosses. " The La
Qui nce or gani zat i on al so of f er ed oppor t uni t i es f or advancement ;
Si er r a- Garc a l ater became a r unner f or Negr n- Sost r e, who owned a
br and of her oi n known as Ar co I r i s. Accor di ng t o Si er r a- Gar c a,
Negr n- Sost r e hel d t wo posi t i ons i n t he her oi n depar t ment ; not onl y
was he an owner , but he al so wor ked as a runner f or Pr ez- Mercado,
t he owner of t he Regal i t o br and of her oi n.
Si er r a- Gar c a t est i f i ed t hat dr ug br and owner shi p i n La
Qui nce was somet hi ng of a f ami l y busi ness, wi t h Maysonet - Sol er
havi ng i nher i t ed hi s i nt er est f r omhi s mot her . Accor di ng t o Si er r a-
Gar c a, Maysonet - Sol er owned t he brand of cocai ne known as Gr een,
or Osi t o.
The j ur y al so heard t est i mony f r om Xi omar a Rosado- Pabn
( "Rosado- Pabn") , who worked as a r unner f or Rodr guez- Sost r e. She
t est i f i ed that Rodr guez- Sost r e owned the Lexus brand of her oi n.
J ess Robl es- Sant ana ( "Robl es- Sant ana") , a sel l er , descr i bed t he
var i et y of pr oduct s avai l abl e at La Qui nce, r ecal l i ng t hat f i f t een
or si xt een di f f er ent br ands of her oi n wer e avai l abl e t her e at any
one t i me. Empl oyee tur nover was hi gh i n t hi s cut - t hr oat busi ness;
many of t he i ndi vi dual s Robl es- Sant ana i dent i f i ed as sel l er s are
now deceased. Ot her s survi ved and t hr i ved. Accordi ng t o Robl es-
-23-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
24/35
Sant ana, by 2007, Rosar i o- Camacho cont r ol l ed al l of t he cr ack
cocai ne and mar i j uana at La Qui nce.
La Qui nce of f er ed not onl y a vast sel ect i on, but
conveni ent shoppi ng hour s as wel l . The dr ug poi nt oper ated on a
t went y- f our hour schedul e, wi t h t wo shi f t s f or t he sal e of cocai ne,
her oi n and ot her dr ugs st ar t i ng at 6: 00 a. m. and 6: 00 p. m. Shi f t s
f or cr ack cocai ne, however , began at 7: 00 a. m. and 7: 00 p. m. These
separ at e shi f t s wer e t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hat par t i cul ar mar ket
because, accor di ng t o Si er r a- Gar c a, cr ack users " woul d come i n at
si x. " Rat her t han al l ow pot ent i al sal es t o sl i p t hr ough t he
cr acks, as i t wer e, t he nor mal shi f t was ext ended anot her hour t o
cat er t o the 6: 00 a. m. r ush.
La Qui nce was a st r eaml i ned model of ef f i ci ency. Dur i ng
t hei r shi f t s, accor di ng t o Si er r a- Gar c a and Rosado- Pabn, sel l er s
wer e al l owed t o peddl e br ands f r omdi f f er ent owner s s i mul t aneousl y.
Si mi l ar l y, r unner s car r i ed dr ugs f or mul t i pl e owner s.
Ther e was al ways somet hi ng new t o t empt t he shoppers at
La Qui nce, and debut pr oduct s r ecei ved savvy market i ng suppor t .
Si er r a- Gar c a r ecal l ed seei ng Rodr guez- Sost r e, Negr n- Sost r e, and
Maysonet - Sol er di st r i but i ng sampl es of new dr ug batches at t he dr ug
poi nt .
The management st yl e at La Qui nce was si mi l ar l y hands- on.
Robl es- Sant ana t est i f i ed t hat he saw def endant s Rodr guez- Sost r e,
Negr n- Sost r e, Rosar i o- Camacho, and Maysonet - Sol er at t he dr ug
-24-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
25/35
poi nt r egul ar l y, and t hat t he men met and had di scussi ons t her e.
But even t he best - managed busi ness occasi onal l y has per sonnel
pr obl ems. Accor di ng t o Si er r a- Gar c a, a di sput e ar ose at La Qui nce
over t he sal e of cocai ne, l eadi ng Maysonet - Sol er t o shoot at
Rodr guez- Sost r e' s si st er . Concer ned t hat thi s i nci dent coul d
i mpact busi ness, sever al owner s hel d a meet i ng " t o f i x the
pr obl em. " Maysonet - Sol er , Rodr guez- Sost r e, and Rosar i o- Camacho
were pr esent at t hi s meet i ng wher e peace was r est or ed when the
owner s agr eed t hat Rodr guez- Sost r e woul d be al l owed t o "f i ni sh of f
some bundl es" of hi s i nvent ory at t he dr ug poi nt bef ore Maysonet -
Sol er woul d be al l owed t o t ake over .
Def endant s Negr n- Sost r e, Rodr guez- Sost r e, and Maysonet -
Sol er have each chal l enged t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence of some,
but not al l , of t he char ges agai nst t hem. Because t he evi dence t o
convi ct each def endant was l argel y t he same, we t ake def endant s'
chal l enges count by count . 16
16Rodr guez- Sost r e i s t he onl y def endant who appears t ochal l enge Count VI , conspi r acy t o use a f i r ear m dur i ng a dr ug-t r af f i cki ng cr i me. However , t he onl y r ef er ence Rodr guez- Sost r e
makes t o Count VI i s t o adopt by r ef erence t he ar gument s made i nMaysonet - Sol er ' s br i ef , but Maysonet - Sol er onl y chal l enges Count sI , I I , I I I and V. Nei t her def endant has made any ar gument aboutCount VI . " [ W] e see no r eason t o abandon t he set t l ed appel l ater ul e that i ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani edby some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. "Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .
-25-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
26/35
Count I - Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Al l of t he def endant s wer e convi ct ed of conspi r acy to
possess and di st r i but e dr ugs i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.
841( a) ( 1) , 846, and 860, but onl y Rodr guez- Sost r e and Maysonet -
Sol er have chal l enged t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence suppor t i ng
t hi s charge. To sust ai n a convi ct i on, " t he gover nment must
est abl i sh t hat ( 1) a conspi r acy exi st ed; ( 2) t he def endant [ s] had
knowl edge of t he conspi r acy; and ( 3) t he def endant [ s] knowi ngl y and
vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.
D az- Ar i as, 717 F. 3d 1, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
marks omi t t ed) . The agr eement t o conspi r e does not need t o be
expr ess and i t s exi st ence may be pr oven by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence.
Uni t ed St at es v. Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . "[ 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 . " Uni t ed St at es v.
Mar t nez- Medi na, 279 F. 3d 105, 113 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .
Rodr guez- Sost r e and Maysonet - Sol er argue t hat t he
evi dence showed mul t i pl e conspi r aci es, but di d not suppor t a
si ngl e, over - ar chi ng conspi r acy, and t hus a var i ance exi st ed
bet ween t he evi dence present ed and t he char ge. We l ook t o t he
t ot al i t y of t he evi dence t o det er mi ne whet her i t suppor t s t he
exi st ence of a si ngl e conspi r acy. Uni t ed St at es v. Mangual -
Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 421 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . I n eval uat i ng t he
-26-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
27/35
evi dence, we consi der t he f ol l owi ng f act or s: " ( 1) t he exi st ence of
a common pur pose, e. g. , t he di st r i but i on of dr ugs; ( 2)
i nt er dependence of var i ous el ement s i n t he over al l pl an; and ( 3)
over l ap among t he par t i ci pant s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n,
578 F. 3d 78, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .
The f i r st f act or , common goal or pur pose, i s "br oadl y
dr awn. " Uni t ed St at es v. Por t el a, 167 F. 3d 687, 695 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r .
1999) . We have pr evi ousl y f ound t hat havi ng "an i nt er est i n
f ur t her i ng t he di st r i but i on" of dr ugs i s suf f i ci ent evi dence of a
common goal . I d. at 695. Here, t here was ampl e t est i moni al
evi dence t hat Maysonet - Sol er and Rodr guez- Sost r e were "member [ s]
of a l arge dr ug di st r i but i on network t hat had t he common pur pose of
sel l i ng dr ugs f or pr of i t . " Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d at 89.
Al t hough Maysonet - Sol er owned br ands of cocai ne, and Rodr guez-
Sost r e her oi n, t hey bot h shar ed an i nt er est i n f ur t her i ng t he
di st r i but i on of dr ugs at t he La Qui nce dr ug poi nt .
We next consi der i nterdependence. I nterdependence was at
t he ver y hear t of La Qui nce - - a hi ghl y- organi zed dr ug super market
wher e owner s worked cooper at i vel y t o maxi mi ze pr of i t s.
" I nt er dependence exi st s wher e the act i vi t i es of one aspect of t he
scheme ar e necessar y or advant ageous t o t he success of anot her
aspect of t he scheme. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n
Ri ver a Cal der n, evi dence t hat t he par t i ci pant s "act i vel y wor ked
wi t h each ot her t o pr ot ect t he dr ug poi nt s f r om t hr eat s, " and hel d
-27-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
28/35
meet i ngs t o di scuss secur i t y at t he dr ug poi nt , demonst r at ed
i nt er dependence. I d at 90. Her e, Si er r a- Gar c a t est i f i ed t hat
l ookout s wer e hi r ed t o war n al l of t he par t i ci pant s of t he appr oach
of l aw enf or cement , and i n so doi ng pr ot ect ed al l of t he owner s
f r om l osses. Ther e was al so t est i mony t hat Robl es- Sant ana saw
Rodr guez- Sost r e, Maysonet - Sol er , and ot her owner s t al ki ng at t he
dr ug poi nt "dai l y. "
" I nt er dependency [ i s] al so demonst r at ed by t he var i ous
r ul es est abl i shed by t he par t i ci pant s i n t he conspi r acy. " I d. La
Qui nce r an l i ke cl ockwor k i n t wel ve- hour shi f t s, wi t h a separ at e
schedul e f or t he sal e of cr ack cocai ne. I t i s r easonabl e t o i nf er
t hat t he shi f t syst em di d not spr i ng f ul l y- f or med by happenst ance,
but r at her was devi sed by t he owner s f or t he benef i t of t hem al l .
" [ K] nown i nt er dependence . . . makes i t r easonabl e to
speak of a t aci t under st andi ng bet ween t he di st r i but or and ot her s
upon whose unl awf ul act s t he di st r i but or knows hi s own success
l i kel y depends. " Por t el a, 167 F. 3d at 695 ( al t er at i ons i n
or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "[ E] vi dence of an
i ndi vi dual par t i ci pant ' s under st andi ng of t he i nt er dependence of
t he co- conspi r at or s' acti vi t i es i s . . . of t en t he best evi dence [ ]
of t aci t agr eement bet ween t he i ndi vi dual and hi s co- conspi r at or s. "
I d. The j ur y hear d t est i mony t hat sel l er s sol d dr ugs f or mul t i pl e
owner s, and t hat t hi s was per mi t t ed by t he owner s. Fr om t hi s
evi dence i t woul d be r easonabl e f or t he j ur y t o i nf er t hat t he
-28-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
29/35
owner s worked cooper at i vel y t o ensure t he success of t he dr ug
poi nt . Fur t her evi dence of t hi s cooper at i on was t he t est i mony t hat
sever al owner s met t o r esol ve t he pr obl em t hat ar ose af t er
Maysonet - Sol er shot at Rodr guez- Sost r e' s si st er . And per haps t he
st r ongest evi dence of t hi s cooper at i on i s t he f act t hat a sol ut i on
was r eached at t hat meet i ng, i mpl yi ng t hat peacef ul commerce f or
al l at La Qui nce was mor e i mpor t ant t o t he par t i ci pant s t han t he
i ndi vi dual goal s of ei t her of t he f eudi ng owner s.
Fi nal l y, t he evi dence demonst r at ed subst ant i al over l ap
among t he par t i ci pant s, wi t h Negr n- Sost r e wear i ng t wo hats,
worki ng as a r unner f or Pr ez- Mer cado, whi l e at t he same t i me
owni ng hi s own br and of heroi n. Negr n- Sost r e was not t he onl y
mul t i - t asker ; r unner s and sel l er s wor ked f or mul t i pl e owner s, and
l ookout s wor ked f or t he benef i t of al l . The hi ghl y- or gani zed
natur e of t he shi f t syst em and t he meet i ngs bet ween t he owner s al l
suf f i ce t o show over l ap.
The def endants ar gue, however , t hat t her e were many
gr oups sel l i ng dr ugs i ndependent l y, and t he f act t hat t her e wer e
di f f er ent br ands of dr ugs was i ndi cat i ve of i ndependent l i nes of
suppl y. Fur t her , t hey asser t t hat because t he owner s di d not shar e
pr of i t s, and t her e was "no cent r al f i gur e" i n cont r ol , La Qui nce
pl ayed host t o mul t i pl e conspi r aci es, r at her t han a si ngl e
conspi r acy. Accor di ng t o t he def endant s, t he onl y t hi ng t hey had
i n common was t he l ocat i on i n whi ch t hey peddl ed t hei r wares.
-29-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
30/35
Ther e i s no r equi r ement t hat t he members of t he
conspi r acy shar e pr of i t s, or answer t o a si ngl e boss. Ther e i s
abundant evi dence, however , t hat t he owners worked cooperat i vel y t o
mai nt ai n secur i t y and negot i at e di sput es i n or der t o maxi mi ze t hei r
own pr of i t s. "The f act t hat ever y def endant di d not par t i ci pat e i n
ever y t r ansact i on necessar y t o f ul f i l l t he ai m of t hei r agr eement
does not t r ansf or m a cont i nui ng pl an i nt o mul t i pl e conspi r aci es. "
I d. at 696 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
The def endant s suggest t hat " t hi s case may be best
under st ood i f we t hi nk of t he coconspi r at or s as owner s of a
super mar ket t hat sol d di f f er ent pr oduct s. " I n Uni t ed St at es v.
Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d 109, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , we appl i ed t he
super mar ket si mi l e to det er mi ne t hat mul t i pl e conspi r aci es exi st ed
wher e cocai ne f r om one "chai n" of t hr ee suppl i er s, and mar i j uana
f r omanot her chai n of t wo di f f er ent suppl i er s, was sol d by a si ngl e
owner . I n t hat case, we f ound t hat t he member s of t he di st i nct
chai ns wer e par t of separ at e conspi r aci es, and t he f act t hat t hei r
pr oduct s were sol d by a si ngl e "super market " owner di d not make
"t he member s of t he t wo separat e chai ns over al l busi ness par t ner s. "
I d. Her e, unl i ke t he def endant s i n Del l osant os, Rodr guez- Sost r e
and Maysonet - Sol er not onl y owned t he brands, but t hey r an t he
super mar ket . A super mar ket i s an ent er pr i se t hat of f er s one- st op
shoppi ng f or a number of di f f er ent pr oduct s and br ands. I t i s t he
ver y consol i dat i on of al l of t hose br ands wi t hi n one conveni ent
-30-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
31/35
l ocat i on - - wi t h secur i t y, ampl e i nvent or y, and st af f ed by
per sonnel i n r egul ar shi f t s - - t hat makes a super mar ket pr of i t abl e.
I t i s t he f act t hat t he def endant dr ug- br and owner s al so ran t he
dr ug "super market " t hat evi dences t he conspi r acy.
"Ul t i mat el y, whi l e t he anal ysi s of common goal s,
i nt er dependence, and over l ap i s usef ul f or r esol vi ng chal l enges t o
t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence on appeal , t hi s cour t has l ooked
beyond any such l i st s of f act or s t o t he t ot al i t y of t he evi dence i n
det er mi ni ng whet her t her e i s f act ual suppor t f or a f i ndi ng of a
si ngl e conspi r acy. " Por t el a, 167 F. 3d at 696 ( i nt er nal quot at i on
marks omi t t ed) . Our r evi ew of t he r ecord r eveal s ampl e evi dence t o
suppor t a si ngl e conspi r acy. 17 Mor eover , t he same evi dence
demonst r at es t he def endant s' knowl edge of and vol unt ary
par t i ci pat i on i n t hat conspi r acy.
Counts II-V - Aiding and Abetting
Regardi ng t he r emai ni ng count s, Negr n- Sost r e, Rodr guez-
Sost r e, and Maysonet - Sol er al l sound a si mi l ar t heme. Negr n-
Sost r e concedes t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o convi ct hi m
of Count I I ( her oi n) , but he argues t hat t her e was no evi dence t hat
he assi st ed or i nt ended t o assi st i n t he possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o
17Because t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence of a si ngl e,over ar chi ng conspi r acy, " t her e [ i s] no var i ance bet ween theevi dence pr oduced at t r i al and t he i ndi ct ment . " Uni t ed St at es v.Mangual - Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 423 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . "A var i ancei s gr ounds f or r ever sal onl y i f i t i s pr ej udi ci al . " I d. at 421.Ther e bei ng no var i ance, we do not r each t he quest i on of pr ej udi ce.
-31-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
32/35
di st r i but e crack cocai ne, cocai ne, or mar i j uana ( Count s I I I , I V,
and V, r espect i vel y) . Rodr guez- Sost r e chal l enges Count s I I I
( cr ack cocai ne) and V ( mar i j uana) , cont endi ng t hat no evi dence was
pr esent ed t hat he ai ded and abet t ed any of hi s co- def endant s i n t hepossessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e t hese subst ances. Maysonet -
Sol er argues t hat , whi l e t her e "may have been evi dence t hat [ he]
agr eed wi t h ot her per sons t o sel l cocai ne, " t he evi dence f ai l ed t o
show t hat he ai ded and abet t ed t he possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o
di st r i but e her oi n, crack cocai ne, and mar i j uana ( Count s I I , I I I ,
and V) .
I n essence, t he def endant s ar gue t hat t he evi dence di d
not connect each of t hem t o any of t he i l l i ci t dr ugs ot her t han
t hei r own br ands. Maysonet - Sol er f ur t her ar gues t hat co- oper at i ng
wi t ness Rosado- Pabn di dn' t t i e hi m t o t he ot her s, and mer e
knowl edge of hi s co- def endant s' dr ug t r af f i cki ng ( and hi s pr esence
dur i ng sal es) i s i nsuf f i cent t o pr ove he ai ded and abet t ed t hat
t r af f i cki ng. Because t he r equi r ed showi ng i s t he same under each
count , we wi l l anal yze t hem t oget her .
I t i s a wel l - set t l ed pr i nci pl e of ai di ng and abet t i ng
l i abi l i t y that i f t he gover nment pr oves t he el ement s of a cr i me
char ged by pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt , a def endant may be hel d
i ndi r ect l y r esponsi bl e as an ai der and abet t or i f he "associ at ed
hi msel f wi t h t he vent ur e . . . par t i ci pat ed i n i t as somet hi ng t hat
he wi shed t o br i ng about , and . . . sought by hi s act i ons t o make
-32-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
33/35
t he vent ur e succeed. " Uni t ed St ates v. Lugo- Guer r er o, 524 F. 3d 5,
13 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The gover nment can sat i sf y i t s bur den by
demonst r at i ng "t hat t he def endant consci ousl y shar ed t he
pr i nci pal ' s knowl edge of t he under l yi ng cr i mi nal act , and i nt endedt o hel p t he pr i nci pal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Br i st ol - Mr t i r , 570 F. 3d
29, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I t i s
not necessary t o pr ove t hat a def endant had " [ k] nowl edge of t he
par t i cul ar cont r ol l ed subst ance bei ng i mpor t ed or di st r i but ed . . .
i nt ent t o di st r i but e can be i nf er r ed f r om t he quant i t y of dr ugs
i nvol ved. " I d. ( f i r st al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
marks omi t t ed) .
As di scussed i n t he pr evi ous sect i on, t her e was ampl e
t est i mony t hat Negr n- Sost r e, Rodr guez- Sost r e, and Maysonet - Sol er
associ ated t hemsel ves wi t h t he vent ur e of oper at i ng a dr ug
"super mar ket " at La Qui nce. Robl es- Sant ana t est i f i ed t hat he saw
t hese def endant s at La Qui nce regul ar l y, and that t he def endant s
met and had di scussi ons t her e. Fur t her , Si er r a- Gar c a descr i bed
seei ng t he def endants handi ng out sampl es of new drug bat ches at
t he dr ug poi nt . The gover nment " i s ent i t l ed t o r el y, even
excl usi vel y, on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o pr ove i t s case, and t he
pr oof need not excl ude ever y r easonabl e hypothesi s of i nnocence,
pr ovi ded t he r ecor d as a whol e suppor t s a concl usi on of gui l t
beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Lugo- Guer r ero, 524 F. 3d at 13
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Al t hough t he def endant s' mer e
-33-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
34/35
pr esence i n La Qui nce i s not suf f i ci ent , st andi ng al one, t o pr ove
t hat t hey ai ded and abet t ed t he possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o
di st r i but e ever y t ype of dr ug sol d t her e, t hei r r egul ar , ongoi ng
pr esence and i nt er act i on wi t h each ot her i s cer t ai nl y st r ongci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat t hey associ ated t hemsel ves wi t h t he
vent ur e.
La Qui nce was a hi ghl y- or gani zed oper at i on that r an 24/ 7
and pr ovi ded seemi ngl y al l of t he i l l i ci t subst ances i t s cl i ent el e
mi ght desi r e. Lookout s, much l i ke st or e secur i t y, ser ved t o
pr ot ect al l owner s f r om l osses - - not f r om shopl i f t er s, but f r om
l aw enf or cement . Runner s suppl i ed mul t i pl e sel l er s, and sel l er s
si mul t aneousl y sol d br ands f r omsever al owner s, much l i ke warehouse
oper at or s and sal es cl er ks. Al l of t hese wor ker s wer e or gani zed i n
st r i ct t wel ve- hour shi f t s. Thi s l evel of coor di nat i on woul d not
have been possi bl e wi t hout t he par t i ci pat i on of t he def endant s wi t h
an i nt ent t o ensur e t he success of t he vent ur e. Not onl y di d t he
owner s cooper at e by al l owi ng t hei r r unner s and sel l er s t o wor k f or
di f f erent owners at t he same t i me, but when necessary, t hey met t o
r esol ve a di sput e t hat mi ght have t hr eat ened t he pr of i t abi l i t y of
t he ent er pr i se.
I t i s appar ent t hat each of t he def endant s consci ousl y
shar ed knowl edge of t he cr i mi nal desi gn of t he La Qui nce dr ug
poi nt , and wor ked t oget her t o ensur e i t s success; " [ k] nowl edge of
t he par t i cul ar cont r ol l ed subst ance bei ng . . . di st r i but ed i s not
-34-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 1st Cir. (2015)
35/35
necessar y. " Br i stol - Mar t i r , 570 F. 3d at 39 ( f i r st al t er at i on i n
or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, t her e
was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh t hat each of t he def endant s
ai ded and abet t ed each of t he ot her s i n the possessi on wi t h i nt entt o di st r i but e al l of t he t ypes of dr ugs char ged.
III.
Conclusion
Ther e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o sust ai n t he def endant s'
convi ct i ons, however , t he cl osur e of t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y
sel ect i on was a st r uct ur al er r or t hat r equi r es us t o vacat e t hei r
convi ct i ons and r emand f or a new t r i al .
top related