united states v. gonzalez-perez, 1st cir. (2015)

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

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1743

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

DAVI D GONZLEZ- PREZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,

Tor r uel l a and Ri ppl e, * Ci r cui t J udges.

Ti na Schnei der , f or appel l ant .Mar a A. Dom nguez- Vi ct or i ano, Fi r st 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 esAt 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 J acquel i ne D. Novas- Debi en,Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 23, 2015

* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/33

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Def endant Davi d Gonzl ez- Pr ez

( "Gonzl ez") , a f or mer of f i cer wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce

Depar t ment ( "PRPD") , was char ged wi t h dr ug and gun charges f or hi s

par t i ci pat i on i n f i f t een dr ug t r ansact i ons t hat wer e par t of an FBI

st i ng oper at i on ai med at cor r upt pol i ce of f i cer s. Af t er an el even-

day tr i al , t he j ur y acqui t t ed Gonzl ez of al l char ges ar i si ng out

of t he f i r st dr ug t r ansacti on, as wel l as al l f i r ear m char ges, but

convi ct ed hi m on al l ot her count s. Gonzl ez now appeal s, ar gui ng

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by decl i ni ng t o gi ve j ur y

i nst r uct i ons on ent r apment , dur ess, and i mpeachment by pr i or

convi cti on, and by f ai l i ng t o pr event ot her t r i al er r or s at cl osi ng

ar gument s. Fi ndi ng no r ever si bl e er r or , we af f i r m.

I. Facts

Ai mi ng t o combat cor r upt i on i n t he PRPD, i n 2008 t he

Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( "FBI ") l aunched a st i ng oper at i on

cal l ed "Oper at i on Guard Shack, " whi ch has been descr i bed i n det ai l

i n ot her cases ar i si ng out of t he same oper at i on. See Uni t ed

St at es v. D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d 101 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Del gado- Mar r er o, 744 F. 3d 167 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

D az- Mal donado, 727 F. 3d 130 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . The FBI hi r ed

conf i dent i al i nf or mant s t o i nvi t e pol i ce of f i cer s, suspect ed t o be

cor r upt , t o pr ovi de ar med pr ot ect i on f or dr ug t r ansact i ons st aged

and secr et l y r ecor ded by t he FBI . Pol i ce of f i cer s pr ovi di ng ar med

-2-


3/33

pr ot ect i on f or t hese dr ug t r ansact i ons wer e usual l y pai d bet ween

$2, 000 and $2, 500 per t r ansact i on.

The FBI ' s mai n conf i dent i al i nf or mant i n t hi s case was

Hct or Cot t o- Ri ver a ( "Cot t o" ) , a f or mer PRPD of f i cer . Gonzl ez and

Cot t o had met and wor ked t oget her at t he PRPD. I n ear l y 2008,

whi l e st i l l wor ki ng as pol i ce of f i cer s wi t h t he PRPD, Gonzl ez and

Cot t o wer e char ged at t he st at e l evel f or t aki ng a br i be f r om an

ar r est ee t o f i x hi s case. 1 As a r esul t of t hese cr i mi nal char ges,

t hey wer e bot h i ni t i al l y suspended and t hen t er mi nat ed f r om t hei r

empl oyment wi t h t he PRPD. Bot h Cot t o and Gonzl ez pl ed gui l t y t o

omi ssi on i n t he f ul f i l l ment of t hei r dut i es.

Cot t o al so f aced f eder al char ges f or t aki ng br i bes.

Seeki ng l eni ency on the f eder al charges, Cot t o became a

conf i dent i al i nf or mant f or t he FBI . He por t r ayed hi msel f as a dr ug

deal er and was t asked wi t h i dent i f yi ng cor r upt pol i ce of f i cer s.

Cot t o t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat , si nce he al r eady knew t hat Gonzl ez

was a cor r upt of f i cer , he appr oached Gonzl ez and asked hi mt o sel l

Cot t o dr ugs. Gonzl ez, however , di d not do so. Cot t o t est i f i ed

t hat , on ot her occasi ons, Gonzl ez appr oached Cot t o aski ng hi mf or

wor k i n hi s pur por t ed dr ug busi nesses, but t hat Cot t o di d not of f er

1 Accordi ng t o Cot t o, Gonzl ez, who had ar r est ed a person f ordr ugs and f i r ear ms, asked Cot t o t o be a mi ddl eman and recei ve$8, 000 f r om t he ar r est ee i n exchange f or Gonzl ez' s di smi ssal oft he charges. Cot t o accept ed Gonzl ez' s pr oposal and r ecei ved$8, 000 f r om t he ar r est ee. Cot t o t est i f i ed t hat he and Gonzl ezspl i t t he money evenl y.

-3-


4/33

hi m any j ob, supposedl y because at t he t i me t hey st i l l had t he

st at e br i ber y char ges pendi ng.

Somet i me l at er , Cot t o became i nvol ved i n Operat i on Guard

Shack, wher e he pl ayed the rol e of t he r i ght - hand man f or a dr ug

t r af f i cker and was t asked wi t h i dent i f yi ng and i nvi t i ng cor r upt

pol i ce of f er s t o pr ovi de ar med pr ot ect i on f or t he dr ug

t r ansact i ons. The pl an was t o r equi r e each pol i ce of f i cer

r ecr ui t ed t o, i n t ur n, r ecr ui t anot her cor r upt pol i ce of f i cer , so

t hat t he FBI coul d i dent i f y addi t i onal cor r upt of f i cer s. Cot t o

appr oached pol i ce of f i cer s whom he al r eady t hought wer e cor r upt ,

i ncl udi ng Gonzl ez.

On or about Sept ember 9, 2009, Cot t o t el ephoned Gonzl ez

t o t el l hi m f or t he f i r st t i me about an ar med secur i t y j ob t hat he

had avai l abl e f or t he f ol l owi ng day. Cot t o t ol d Gonzl ez t hat t he

j ob woul d pay $2, 000. Gonzl ez, who was awar e t hat t he wor k bei ng

of f er ed was not l egal , 2 r esponded: "Okay. I f you' r e gonna pay me,

yes. I f you' r e gonna t ake me f or a f ool , no. " Af t er Cot t o

r eassur ed hi m t hat t he j ob i ndeed pai d $2, 000, Gonzl ez enl i st ed

f or t he j ob. Det ai l s of t he t r ansact i on wer e not di scussed over

t he phone, because Gonzl ez was r el uct ant t o do so. 3 Cot t o di d,

2 Al t hough Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat t he wor d "dr ugs" was neverment i oned dur i ng the t el ephone conver sat i on, he admi t t ed t hat heknew t he j ob must have been i l l egal because of t he hi gh pay bei ngof f er ed.

3 Dur i ng t he t el ephone conver sat i on Cot t o asked Gonzl ez: "Youwant me t o gi ve you det ai l s, or not ?" Gonzl ez r esponded: "Wel l - -

-4-


5/33

however , t el l Gonzl ez t hat he needed t o wear a bul l et pr oof vest ,

t ake a f i r ear m wi t h hi m, and br i ng anot her pol i ce of f i cer t o al so

pr ovi de armed secur i t y. Gonzl ez agr eed t o wear i ng a bul l et pr oof

vest but sai d he was unabl e t o get a f i r ear mor enl i st someone el se

f or t he j ob. Cot t o t ol d Gonzl ez not t o wor r y about t he f i r ear m,

and r eached out t o a cor r ect i on of f i cer wi t h whomhe was acquai nt ed

because a t hi r d person who coul d be t r ust ed was al l egedl y needed

f or t he secur i t y det ai l . Cot t o and Gonzl ez t hen di scussed t he

detai l s about how Gonzl ez was t o get t o t he apar t ment where t he

secur i t y woul d be pr ovi ded.

As pl anned, on September 10, 2009, Gonzl ez met wi t h

Cot t o at t he Pl aza Las Amr i cas shoppi ng mal l , where t hey were

j oi ned by Chr i st i an D az- Mal donado ( "D az" ) , t he cor r ect i on of f i cer

r ecr ui t ed by Cot t o. 4 They al l dr ove t oget her t o an apar t ment i n

I sl a Ver de, Puer t o Ri co, wher e t he secur i t y woul d be pr ovi ded.

Thi s apar t ment had conceal ed audi o and r ecor di ng devi ces.

Whi l e wai t i ng f or t he dr ug buyer at t he apar t ment ,

Gonzl ez drank beer and casual l y chat t ed wi t h Cot t o, D az, and the

pur por t ed dr ug tr af f i cker , Eddi e. 5 Af t er t he dr ug buyer ar r i ved,

no, I don' t know i f over t he phone . . . . "

4 D az was charged and convi ct ed i n a separate case f or hi spar t i ci pat i on i n Oper at i on Guar d Shack. He appeal ed hi s convi ct i onand sent ence, both of whi ch wer e af f i r med by t hi s cour t . See D az-Mal donado, 727 F. 3d 130.

5 Eddi e was r eal l y an under cover speci al agent i n t he FBI ' s NewYor k of f i ce.

-5-


6/33

Gonzl ez f r i sked t he buyer f or conceal ed weapons and recordi ng

devi ces. Eddi e t hen br ought out a pi ece of l uggage and r emoved

br i cks of f ake cocai ne f r om i t . The buyer exami ned t he br i cks.

Upon the concl usi on of t he dr ug t r ansact i on, Gonzl ez and

D az escor t ed the buyer t o t he exi t and ret ur ned to Cot t o, who t hen

pai d $2, 000 t o each Gonzl ez and D az. Gonzl ez t ook t he money

wi t hout hesi t at i on, count ed i t , and pl aced i t i n hi s pocket . As he

was get t i ng r eady to l eave t he apar t ment , Gonzl ez t ol d Eddi e, "we

ar e at your ser vi ce. "

Af t er t he Sept ember 10 t r ansact i on, Gonzl ez par t i ci pat ed

i n f our t een addi t i onal dr ug t r ansact i ons. He was pai d ei t her

$2, 000 or $2, 500 f or hi s par t i ci pat i on i n each of t hem. For t hese

subsequent t r ansact i ons, Gonzl ez car r i ed f i r ear ms. He al so

r ecr ui t ed addi t i onal peopl e t o pr ovi de ar med secur i t y f or t hese

t r ansact i ons, i ncl udi ng hi s br ot her , hi s si ster - i n- l aw, hi s

nei ghbor , and hi s bar ber . These subsequent t r ansact i ons had t he

same modus oper andi as t he one t hat t ook pl ace on Sept ember 10,

2009. Most of t hese t r ansact i ons were pr eceded by r ecor ded

t el ephone conver sat i ons bet ween Gonzl ez and Cot t o, dur i ng whi ch

t hey di scussed whet her Gonzl ez had r ecr ui t ed ot her s t o assi st i n

t he t r ansact i ons, t hei r names, and whet her Gonzl ez had expl ai ned

t o t hose r ecr ui t ed what was expect ed of t hem dur i ng t he

t r ansact i ons. Gonzl ez mani f est ed hi s gr at i t ude f or bei ng of f er ed

t hese addi t i onal wor k oppor t uni t i es, r ei t er at ed t hat he was at

-6-


7/33

Eddi e' s ser vi ce and i ndi cat ed hi s wi l l i ngness t o engage i n ot her

i l l egal acti vi t i es, such as buyi ng i l l egal f i r ear ms and

coor di nat i ng dr ug smuggl i ng vent ur es f or Eddi e. Gonzl ez' s l ast

t r ansact i on t ook pl ace on March 16, 2010. He was ar r est ed i n

Sept ember 2010.

I n August 2011, Gonzl ez was t r i ed al one bef ore a j ur y on

si xty- t hr ee count s cont ai ned i n a second super sedi ng i ndi ct ment .

The char ges i ncl uded mul t i pl e count s of conspi r acy t o possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) ,

( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) ( I I ) , 846; ai di ng and abet t i ng an at t empt t o possess

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) ,

( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) ( I I ) , 846; 18 U. S. C. 2; possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

r el at i on t o a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me, 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ; and

ai di ng and abet t i ng possessi on of a f i r ear m i n r el at i on t o a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng cri me, 18 U. S. C. 924( c)( 1) ( A) ; i d. 2.

At t r i al , Gonzl ez admi t t ed hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he dr ug

t r ansact i ons, but cl ai med t hat he was car r yi ng bl ank f i r ear ms. He

al so cl ai med t hat when he agr eed t o par t i ci pat e i n t he i ni t i al

t r ansact i on, he di d not know t hat i t woul d i nvol ve dr ugs and t hat

i t was not unt i l t he br i cks of cocai ne wer e pul l ed out of t he

l uggage i n t he mi ddl e of t he f i r st t r ansact i on t hat he r eal i zed

t hat he was i n a dr ug t r ansact i on. Gonzl ez f ur t her cl ai med t hat

Cot t o t ook advant age of hi s f i nanci al si t uat i on, and t hat he

cont i nued par t i ci pat i ng i n t he t r ansact i ons out of f ear f or hi s

-7-


8/33

saf et y and t hat of hi s f ami l y. Accor di ngl y, Gonzl ez r equest ed

j ur y i nst r uct i ons on ent r apment and dur ess . He al so r equest ed j ur y

i nst r uct i ons on i mpeachment of wi t ness by pr i or convi ct i on. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed hi s r equest .

Fol l owi ng an el even- day tr i al , t he j ur y acqui t t ed

Gonzl ez of al l t he f i r ear mchar ges and of t he dr ug char ges ar i si ng

out of t he f i r st dr ug t r ansact i on. Gonzl ez was convi ct ed of t he

dr ug char ges ar i si ng out of t he f our t een subsequent dr ug

t r ansact i ons. He was sent enced at t he l ower end of hi s appl i cabl e

Gui del i nes' sent enci ng r ange ( i . e. , 292 mont hs of i mpr i sonment ) , t o

be f ol l owed by a f i ve- year t er mof super vi sed r el ease. Thi s appeal

f ol l owed.

II. Discussion of Gonzlez's Claims

A. Denial of Instruction on Entrapment Defense

Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat he was ent i t l ed t o a j ur y

i nst r uct i on on ent r apment . He argues t hat t here was enough

evi dence i n t he r ecord t o f i nd both t hat t he gover nment i nduced hi m

t o commi t t he cr i mes by " f or cef ul sol i ci t at i on and dogged

i nsi st ence, " and t hat he ot her wi se l acked t he pr edi sposi t i on t o do

so. Because Gonzl ez pr eser ved hi s obj ect i on bel ow, we r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve an ent r apment i nst r uct i on de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Ni eves, 670 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I n

so doi ng, we exami ne t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o

Gonzl ez. I d. at 10.

-8-


9/33

The def ense of ent r apment has t wo el ements:

( 1) gover nment i nducement of t he cr i mi nal conduct ; and ( 2) an

absence of pr edi sposi t i on on t he par t of t he def endant t o engage i n

t he cr i mi nal conduct . D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 109; Uni t ed St at es

v. Panet - Col l azo, 960 F. 2d 256, 259 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . I nducement

r equi r es not onl y gi vi ng t he def endant t he oppor t uni t y t o commi t

t he cr i me but al so a "pl us" f act or of gover nment over r eachi ng.

Uni t ed St at es v. Guevar a, 706 F. 3d 38, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Exampl es of gover nment conduct t hat may

sat i sf y thi s "pl us" f act or i ncl ude "excessi ve pr essur e, such as t he

use of i nt i mi dat i on, t hr eat s, or ' dogged i nsi st ence, ' [ and] ' t aki ng

advant age of an al t er nat i ve, non- cr i mi nal t ype of mot i ve. ' " I d.

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . "Oper at i ons whi ch mer el y gi ve a def endant an

oppor t uni t y t o commi t a cr i me, i ncl udi ng st i ng oper at i ons,

or di nar i l y do not const i t ut e ent r apment . " Dvi l a- Ni eves, 670 F. 3d

at 9.

I n or der t o be ent i t l ed t o an i nst r uct i on on ent r apment ,

t he recor d must show "some har d evi dence" of both gover nment

i nducement and t he def endant ' s l ack of pr edi sposi t i on. I d. Thi s

evi dence must be mor e t han uncor r obor at ed sel f - servi ng asser t i ons.

Uni t ed St at es v. Shi nder man, M. D. , 515 F. 3d 5, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

I n assessi ng t he suf f i ci ency of t hi s evi dence, t he di st r i ct cour t

may not wei gh t he evi dence, make cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons or

r esol ve conf l i ct s i n t he evi dence. Dvi l a- Ni eves, 670 F. 3d at 10.

-9-


10/33

Rather , i t must det er mi ne whet her t he evi dence i s enough, " i f

bel i eved by a r at i onal j ur or , t o cr eat e a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he

def endant commi t t ed t he cr i me of hi s own accor d. " Panet - Col l azo,

960 F. 2d at 259. 6

Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat t he government i mpr oper l y i nduced

hi mt o commi t t he charged cr i mes because Cot t o was a f r i end of hi s,

knew of Gonzl ez' s di f f i cul t f i nanci al si t uat i on, and cal l ed

Gonzl ez sever al t i mes, f i r st aski ng t o buy dr ugs f r om hi m, and

t hen t o of f er hi m t he ar med secur i t y j ob. None of t hese

ci r cumst ances amount t o i mproper government i nducement .

Fi r st , Gonzl ez ci t es no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat Cot t o

sol i ci t ed hi s par t i ci pat i on by appeal i ng di r ectl y t o t hei r

f r i endshi p. Uni t ed St at es v. Bal t as, 236 F. 3d 27, 37 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ( r ej ect i ng "t he pr oposi t i on t hat f r i endshi p, wi t hout a pl ea

pr edi cat ed upon f r i endshi p, suf f i ces l egal l y as i nducement "

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Young, 78 F. 3d 758, 761 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) ) ) .

Second, Gonzl ez ci t es no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat hi s

f i nanci al si t uat i on was such t hat he was at a par t i cul ar l y

6 We r ecent l y st at ed i n D az- Mal donado t hat " t he ent r apmentdef ense i s a di f f i cul t def ense t o r ai se and pr evai l on. " 727 F. 3d

at 139. Ther e, we af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o char get he j ur y on ent r apment and we noted t hat " [ i ] n t went y- t wo pr i orappeal s to t hi s ci r cui t chal l engi ng a t r i al cour t ' s ref usal t o gi vea j ur y i nst r uct i on on ent r apment , we have over r ul ed t he ref usalonl y t hr ee t i mes. " I d. at 139- 140. Subsequent l y, i n D az- Cast r o,we once agai n af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve ani nst r uct i on on ent r apment . 752 F. 3d 101.

-10-


11/33

vul ner abl e poi nt i n hi s l i f e. Al l t he r ecor d shows i s t hat

Gonzl ez had var i ous par t - t i me j obs, t he l ast one endi ng t he week

pr ecedi ng hi s f i r st t r ansact i on, t hat he was r ecei vi ng unempl oyment

benef i t s, and t hat he t hought t hat t he hi gh payment of f er ed by

Cot t o woul d hel p hi m sol ve hi s f i nanci al si t uat i on. Thi s i s not

enough t o const i t ut e i nducement . See Uni t ed St at es v. D az- D az,

433 F. 3d 128, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "The pr omi se of f i nanci al gai n,

however , even i f si gni f i cant , i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e

gover nment i nducement . " ) ; Bal t as, 236 F. 3d at 37 ( hol di ng t hat

mer el y pr esent i ng def endant wi t h a pl an t o al l evi at e a "st r angl i ng

f i nanci al si t uat i on" does not const i t ut e i nducement ) .

Thi r d, Gonzl ez' s bare asser t i on t hat Cot t o cal l ed hi m

sever al t i mes and Gonzl ez decl i ned pr evi ous i nvi t at i ons t o commi t

of f enses does not amount t o i nducement . I n anal yzi ng whet her t her e

was i mpr oper i nducement , t he method of pur por t edl y i nduci ng a

def endant i s mor e i mpor t ant t han t he number of sol i ci t at i ons.

Accor di ngl y, we have hel d t hat havi ng an ent husi ast i c and

per si st ent buyer does not amount t o i mproper gover nment i nducement .

Uni t ed St at es v. Tel eguz, 492 F. 3d 80, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( " [ M] er el y gi vi ng a def endant an oppor t uni t y t o commi t a cr i me when

t he gover nment put s f or t h an ent husi ast i c and per si st ent buyer of

i l l i ci t goods cannot be i mpr oper i nducement . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Pr at t , 913 F. 2d 982, 989 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( r ej ect i ng def endant ' s

cont ent i on t hat he was ent i t l ed t o a j ur y i nst r uct i on r egar di ng

-11-


12/33

ent r apment gi ven evi dence of mul t i pl e phone cal l s f r om t he

gover nment agent , even coupl ed wi t h def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o ret ur n

phone cal l s and appear at schedul ed meet i ngs) .

Here, t here was no arm- t wi st i ng or undue coerci ve method

empl oyed. Al t hough Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat t here was some r esi st ance

on hi s par t bef or e t he f i r st dr ug t r ansact i on and t hat i t t ook

sever al cal l s bef or e al l det ai l s wer e i r oned out , t he r ecor d shows

t hat Gonzl ez' s r esi st ance had not hi ng t o do wi t h t he i dea of

pr ovi di ng pr ot ect i on f or t he tr ansact i on, 7 but r at her wi t h t he

r equi r ement of t aki ng a f i r ear m wi t h hi m and of r ecr ui t i ng someone

el se t o al so pr ovi de ar med secur i t y. The sever al t el ephone cal l s

wer e made t o st r ai ght en out t he det ai l s, not t o convi nce hi m t o do

t he j ob. See Uni t ed St at es v. Roger s, 102 F. 3d 641, 646 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) ( r ej ect i ng def endant ' s cl ai mt hat he was "t ar get ed" because

he "pr oved r eady enough t o ent er i nt o t al ks" and " [ h] i s onl y

r esi st ance was not t o t he i dea of t he cr i me, but r at her t o t he

r i sks and t he t er ms" ) . I n f act , Gonzl ez seemed so eager t o avai l

hi msel f of t he oppor t uni t i es t o commi t t he cr i mes t hat he

r epeat edl y t ol d Eddi e t hat he was " ver y gr at ef ul " and "at hi s

ser vi ce, " and excl ai med "Oh wow! That ' s awesome, dude, " upon

l ear ni ng of an addi t i onal oppor t uni t y t o pr ovi de ar med secur i t y.

7 The f i r st t i me t hat Cot t o of f er ed hi m a j ob pr ovi di ng ar medsecur i t y, Gonzl ez sai d t hat he woul d be happy t o par t i ci pat e i fCot t o woul d not " t ake [hi m] f or a f ool " and woul d act ual l y pay hi m.

-12-


13/33

Moreover , addi t i onal evi dence on t he r ecord under cut s

Gonzl ez' s cl ai m of i mpr oper gover nment i nducement . The evi dence

showed t hat he associ at ed wi t h peopl e connect ed t o t he dr ug wor l d, 8

he never r epor t ed any al l eged t hr eat , he par t i ci pat ed i n f i f t een

separ at e t r ansact i ons, and t he vi deos of t hese t r ansact i ons show

t hat he "d[ i d] n' t l ook anyt hi ng l i ke a per son who' s bei ng

ent r apped. " See Uni t ed St ates v. Capel t on, 350 F. 3d 231, 243 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) ( emphasi zi ng t hese same ci r cumst ances as i ndi cators t hat

t her e was no gover nment i nducement ) . I n f act , he seemed so

comf or t abl e ar ound Eddi e, t he dr ug deal er , t hat he dr ank beer wi t h

hi m, hugged hi m, and even i nvi t ed hi s f ami l y and cl ose f r i ends,

i ncl udi ng hi s br ot her , si st er - i n- l aw, and hi s nei ghbor , t o

par t i ci pat e i n t he dr ug t r ansact i ons. He al so was comf or t abl e

enough t o make demands f r omCot t o and even r epr oached Cot t o f or not

answer i ng hi s t el ephone cal l when Gonzl ez had been cal l i ng hi mal l

day t o ask hi m whet her t her e was mor e wor k.

Al t hough Gonzl ez woul d have us consi der onl y t he

evi dence pr of f er ed by hi m, t o t he excl usi on of ot her evi dence i n

t he case, when we assess t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence f or an

i nst r uct i on on ent r apment , we must consi der al l t he evi dence on

r ecor d. Looki ng at al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

Gonzl ez, no r easonabl e j ur or coul d concl ude t hat he was i mpr oper l y

8 Accor di ng t o t he evi dence on r ecor d, whi l e wor ki ng as a pol i ceof f i cer , Gonzl ez l et a dr ug t r af f i cker , who woul d pot ent i al l y f acedr ug and f i r ear m char ges, wal k away i n exchange f or money.

-13-


14/33

i nduced by t he gover nment . Because we concl ude t hat Gonzl ez di d

not car r y hi s ent r y- l evel bur den as t o i mpr oper gover nment

i nducement , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o char ge t he j ur y on

ent r apment was j ust i f i ed and we need not dwel l on t he evi dence of

pr edi sposi t i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Paul i no, 488 F. 3d 459, 462

n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( "Gi ven t he di sj unct i ve nat ur e of t he

[ ent r apment ] t est , we can f ul f i l l our appel l at e f uncti on . . . on

ei t her i nducement or pr edi sposi t i on. " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Capel t on, 350 F. 3d at 242- 43) ) .

B. Denial of Instruction on Duress Defense

Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat he was al so ent i t l ed t o a j ur y

i nst r uct i on on dur ess. "Dur ess i s a common l aw def ense t hat

excuses cr i mi nal conduct i f t he def endant vi ol at ed t he l aw onl y

because [ he] was unl awf ul l y t hr eat ened by another per son wi t h death

or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez, 724 F. 3d 15,

27 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . A dur ess def ense r equi r es pr oof t hat t he

def endant commi t t ed a cr i me as a r esul t of : " ( 1) an i mmedi ate

t hr eat of ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h, ( 2) a wel l - gr ounded

bel i ef t hat t he t hr eat wi l l be car r i ed out , and ( 3) no r easonabl e

oppor t uni t y t o escape or ot her wi se t o f r ust r at e t he t hr eat . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ar t hur s, 73 F. 3d 444, 448 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ; see

al so D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 108.

I n suppor t of hi s dur ess def ense, Gonzl ez poi nt s t o hi s

t est i mony t hat , because he was i nvol ved i n a dr ug t r ansact i on and

-14-


15/33

he "was pr ovi di ng secur i t y f or [ ] an i mpor t ant per son" who "had

cont r ol of everyt hi ng" and who knew where Gonzl ez l i ved, Gonzl ez

bel i eved t hat hi s own l i f e and t he l i ves of hi s f ami l y member s wer e

i n danger . I t was i mpl i ed, Gonzl ez cl ai med, t hat i f anyone went

t o the pol i ce, Eddi e woul d t ake car e of t hem "i n a vi ol ent way. "

Al so, accor di ng t o Gonzl ez, Cot t o t ol d hi m t hat Gonzl ez had t o

cont i nue par t i ci pat i ng i n t he dr ug t r ansact i ons.

The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he r ecor d l acked

evi dence t o suppor t t he dur ess def ense and, t hus, i t decl i ned

Gonzl ez' s r equest ed i nst r uct i on. Si nce Gonzl ez' s obj ect i on was

preser ved bel ow, we revi ew de novo whet her he made a t hreshol d

showi ng t hat t he r ecor d evi dence, const r ued i n hi s f avor , suppor t ed

hi s request ed i nst r uct i on. D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 108; Uni t ed

St at es v. Bai r d, 712 F. 3d 623, 627 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Her e, Gonzl ez

has not made such a showi ng.

The al l eged t hr eat was not i mmedi at e, or even i mmi nent .

I f a t hr eat at al l , "i t was no mor e t han a ' vague t hr eat of f ut ur e

har m, ' whi ch i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a dur ess i nst r uct i on. "

Vzquez, 724 F. 3d at 28 ( quot i ng Ar t hur s, 73 F. 3d at 450) ( r ef usi ng

t o consi der al l eged t hr eat of what gang- members " do t o peopl e [who]

. . . sni t ch" as i mmedi at e or " i mmi nent ") . I n addi t i on, t he

al l eged t hr eat woul d be i r r el evant t o the cr i mes char ged, as i t was

di r ect ed at t hose who woul d "go to t he pol i ce, " r at her t han t o

t hose who r ef used t o pr ovi de ar med secur i t y f or dr ug t r ansact i ons.

-15-


16/33

I n anal yzi ng dur ess, "t he r el evant t hr eat i s t hat whi ch ' caused t he

act or t o engage i n conduct vi ol at i ng t he l i t er al t er ms of t he

cri mi nal l aw. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 444 U. S.

394, 409 ( 1980) ) . Gonzl ez f aces dr ug charges, not charges f or

f ai l i ng t o r epor t drug cr i mes. See Vzquez, 724 F. 3d at 28

( r ej ect i ng a dur ess def ense and concl udi ng t hat because def endant

was "char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng t he l aws cr i mi nal i zi ng t he sal e of

cocai ne, not wi t h f ai l i ng t o r epor t t hose cr i mes, " t he t hr eat

agai nst " sni t ches" was i r r el evant ) .

Even accept i ng t hat Gonzl ez mi ght have const r ued t he

al l eged t hr eat agai nst t hose who woul d "go to t he pol i ce" t o be t he

equi val ent of a t hr eat of har mf or not act i vel y commi t t i ng t he dr ug

cr i mes, "such a subj ect i ve bel i ef woul d not const i t ut e a ' wel l -

gr ounded' f ear . " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bel l o, 194 F. 3d 18,

27 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) . The evi dence r equi r ed i s that of t hr eat s

causi ng "a def endant of or di nar y f i r mness and j udgment " t o bel i eve

t hat he woul d f ace i mmedi at e danger i f he di d not commi t t he

cr i mi nal act s. Vzquez, 724 F. 3d at 28 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Cast r o- Gmez, 360 F. 3d 216, 219 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . The evi dence i n

t he r ecor d does not meet t hat st andar d. I n f act , i t shows t he

opposi t e. Ther e i s no evi dence t hat Gonzl ez was t hr eatened bef ore

maki ng t he i ni t i al choi ce t o par t i ci pat e, when he al r eady knew t hat

he woul d be pr ovi di ng secur i t y f or a "danger ous" and "power f ul "

per son, who was i nvol ved i n " somet hi ng i l l egal . " Then, af t er t he

-16-


17/33

f i r st t r ansact i on, Gonzl ez t ol d Eddi e t hat he was "at hi s ser vi ce"

and chose t o r et ur n f our t een addi t i onal t i mes, i n whi ch he showed

exci t ement at t he pr ospect of par t i ci pat i ng i n addi t i onal

t r ansact i ons. I n f act , he r epr oached Cot t o f or not pi cki ng up t he

phone when Gonzl ez had been t r yi ng t o cal l hi m aski ng f or

addi t i onal wor k. Gonzl ez al so t ook hi s cl ose f r i ends and f ami l y

t o par t i ci pat e i n some of t he t r ansact i ons. Based on t hat

evi dence, a r easonabl e j ur or coul d not pl ausi bl y concl ude t hat t he

def endant f aced i mmedi at e danger i f he di d not commi t t he cr i mes

char ged.

I n addi t i on, t he r ecor d i s devoi d of evi dence suggest i ng

t hat Gonzl ez l acked a reasonabl e oppor t uni t y t o escape or

ot her wi se f r ust r at e t he al l eged t hr eat agai nst hi m. Vzquez, 724

F. 3d at 28; Ar t hur s, 73 F. 3d at 448. I nst ead, t he r ecor d shows

t hat he was enj oyi ng hi msel f , dr i nki ng beer , and huggi ng Eddi e.

See D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 108- 109 ( r ej ect i ng def endant ' s cl ai m

t hat he was unabl e t o wi t hdr aw because t her e was no r ecord evi dence

of any ef f or t t o wi t hdr aw and t he vi deo showed def endant enj oyi ng

hi msel f ) .

Fur t her mor e, t he dur ess def ense i s unavai l abl e i f t he

def endant pl aced hi msel f i n a si t uat i on i n whi ch i t was pr obabl e

t hat he woul d be subj ect ed t o dur ess. I d. at 109. Her e, t he

r ecor d shows t hat Gonzl ez put hi msel f i n t hi s si t uat i on not once,

-17-


18/33

but numer ous t i mes, by maki ng hi msel f avai l abl e and "at Eddi e' s

ser vi ce. "

I n l i ght of t hi s, t he evi dence at t r i al , even when

const r ued i n Gonzl ez' s f avor , coul d not have suppor t ed a f i ndi ng

of dur ess. Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n r ef usi ng

t o gi ve an i nst r uct i on on t he dur ess def ense.

C. Denial of Instruction on Impeachment by Prior Conviction

Gonzl ez next cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

r ever si bl e er r or when i t f ai l ed t o gi ve hi s r equest ed i nst r uct i on

concer ni ng t he i mpeachment of wi t nesses by pr i or convi ct i on.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve t hi s

r equest ed j ur y i nst r uct i on under an abuse of di scr et i on st andar d.

Uni t ed St at es v. De La Cr uz, 514 F. 3d 121, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

The r ef usal t o gi ve a r equest ed i nst r uct i on const i t ut es a

r ever si bl e er r or "onl y i f t he i nstr uct i on ( 1) i s substant i vel y

cor r ect ; ( 2) was not subst ant i al l y cover ed i n t he char ge act ual l y

del i ver ed t o t he j ur y; and ( 3) concer ns an i mpor t ant poi nt i n t he

t r i al so t hat t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve i t ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he

def endant ' s abi l i t y t o ef f ect i vel y pr esent a gi ven def ense. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Sober al , 109 F. 3d 64, 70 ( 1st Ci r . 1997)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gi bson, 726 F. 2d 869, 874 ( 1st Ci r .

1984) ) . Under t he t hi r d r equi r ement , "r ever sal i s not r equi r ed

unl ess a def endant suf f er s subst ant i al pr ej udi ce. " De La Cr uz, 514

F. 3d at 139.

-18-


19/33

Her e, Gonzl ez r equest ed a j ur y i nst r uct i on on

i mpeachment of wi t nesses by pr i or convi ct i on because gover nment

wi t nesses Cot t o and Eusebi o Hernndez ( "Hernndez") bot h had pr i or

f el ony convi ct i ons. 9 The government di d not obj ect t o t he

i nst r uct i on. The di st r i ct cour t , however , deni ed t he i nst r uct i on

because i t under st ood t hat t he i nst r uct i on i s war r ant ed onl y i f t he

wi t ness deni es t he pr i or convi ct i on. Si nce bot h Cot t o and

Her nndez had admi t t ed t hei r pr i or convi ct i ons whi l e t est i f yi ng,

t he di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o gi ve t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on.

Gonzl ez i s cor r ect t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sunder st ood

t he appl i cabl e l aw. I mpeachment by pr i or convi ct i on means t hat t he

wi t ness' s char act er f or t r ut hf ul ness may be at t acked by evi dence of

cer t ai n cr i mi nal convi ct i ons. See Fed. R. Evi d. 609( a) . I t does

not r equi r e t hat t he wi t ness f i r st deny t he pr i or cr i mi nal

convi ct i on. I d. However , t hi s does not amount t o a r ever si bl e

er r or i n t hi s case.

Thi s ci r cui t ' s pat t er n i nst r uct i on on i mpeachment of

wi t ness t est i mony by pr i or convi ct i on r eads: "You have hear d

evi dence t hat [ wi t ness] has been convi ct ed of a cr i me. You may

consi der t hat evi dence, t oget her wi t h ot her per t i nent evi dence, i n

deci di ng how much wei ght t o gi ve t o t hat wi t ness' s t est i mony. "

9 Cot t o' s convi ct i on r el at ed t o t he br i ber y i nci dent when he wasa pol i ce of f i cer , whi l e Her nndez' s convi ct i on r esul t ed f r om hi sown par t i ci pat i on i n t he sham dr ug t r ansact i ons wi t h Gonzl ez.

-19-


20/33

Pat t er n Cr i m. J ur y I nst r . 1st Ci r . 2. 03 ( 1998) ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) .

The j ur y i nst r uct i on pr ovi ded by t he di st r i ct cour t

i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng l anguage:

You have hear d t he t est i mony of Hct or Cot t oand Eusebi o Hernndez, t hat t hey pr ovi dedevi dence under agreement s wi t h t he governmentand or par t i ci pat ed i n t he cr i me char gedagai nst t he def endant and or r ecei ved moneyf r om t he gover nment i n exchange f or pr ovi di ngi nf or mat i on. Some peopl e i n t hi s posi t i on ar eent i r el y t r ut hf ul when t est i f yi ng. St i l l youshoul d consider the testimony of these personswith particular caution. You may consi dert hey may have had reason t o make up st or i es orexagger at e what ot her s di d because t hey want edt o hel p hi msel f [ si c] . You must det er mi newhether t he t est i mony of such a wi t ness hasbeen af f ect ed by any i nt er est i n t he out comeof t hi s case, any pr ej udi ce f or or agai nst t hedef endant , or by any of t he benef i t s he hasr ecei ved. You may consider their guilty pleasin assessing their credibility, but you ar enot t o consi der t hei r gui l t y pl eas as evi denceagai nst t hi s def endant i n any way. ( Emphasi s

added) .Al t hough t he i nst r uct i on gi ven by t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not cont ai n t he speci f i c l anguage sought by Gonzl ez, " t her e i s no

r ever si bl e er r or i f t he j ur y char ge t aken as a whol e subst ant i al l y

cover ed t he i ssues cont ai ned i n t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Angi ul o, 897 F. 2d 1169, 1207 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . "The

char ge need not f ol l ow t he exact f or m and wor di ng of t hedef endant ' s pr oposed i nst r uct i ons. " Gonzl ez- Sober al , 109 F. 3d at

70 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

-20-


21/33

We concl ude that t he i nst r uct i on gi ven t o the j ur y

subst ant i al l y addr essed i ssues of credi bi l i t y wi t h r espect t o bot h

government wi t nesses. The f act t hat bot h Cot t o and Hernndez each

had a pr i or f el ony convi ct i on was el i ci t ed, and t hus, t he j ur y was

awar e of t hei r cr i mi nal backgr ounds. The di st r i ct cour t t hen

r emi nded t he j ur y t hat t he t wo wi t nesses had gui l t y pl eas and had

cooper at i on agr eement s wi t h t he gover nment . I t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y

t hat t hey had t he dut y t o det er mi ne cr edi bi l i t y, t hat t he j ur y

shoul d consi der t he t est i mony of t hese two wi t nesses wi t h gr eater

caut i on, and t hat t hey wer e t o consi der al l t he f act or s t hey deemed

r el evant i n assessi ng t hei r cr edi bi l i t y, i ncl udi ng t he pr i or gui l t y

pl eas of bot h Cot t o and Hernndez. Gonzl ez has pr esent ed no

evi dence t hat woul d l ead us t o bel i eve t hat t he j ur y f el t pr event ed

f r om vi ewi ng t he t est i mony of t hese t wo gover nment wi t nesses wi t h

par t i cul ar skept i ci sm or gr eat er caut i on. Ther ef or e, we f i nd no

er r or i n t he i nst r uct i ons gi ven. See Gonzl ez- Sober al , 109 F. 3d at

71 ( f i ndi ng no er r or wher e t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o gi ve t he

i mpeachment by pr i or convi ct i on i nst r uct i on, because t he

i nst r uct i on pr ovi ded r emi nded t he j ur y that t he t wo wi t nesses had

been convi ct ed, t hat t hey had cooper at i on agr eement s wi t h the

gover nment , and that t he j ur y shoul d vi ew t hei r t est i mony wi t h

gr eat er caut i on) .

-21-


22/33

D. Closing Arguments

1. Gonzlez's closing argument

Gonzl ez al l eges t hat dur i ng hi s cl osi ng ar gument t he

di st r i ct cour t made sever al unj ust i f i ed sua spont e i nt er r upt i ons,

and sust ai ned var i ous unf ounded obj ect i ons i nt er posed by t he

gover nment , whi ch pr event ed hi m f r om maki ng an ef f ect i ve cl osi ng

argument and t hus r ender ed t he t r i al unf ai r . Based on t hese

al l eged i nt er r upt i ons and obj ect i ons, Gonzl ez moved f or a new

t r i al . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Gonzl ez' s mot i on under Feder al

Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e Rul e 33, f i ndi ng t hat t he cour t ' s

i nt er j ect i ons wer e war r ant ed and t hat i t had been cor r ect i n i t s

r ul i ngs sust ai ni ng obj ect i ons made dur i ng Gonzl ez' s cl osi ng

ar gument . The cour t al so f ound t hat even i f er r or occur r ed,

Gonzl ez had not been pr ej udi ced by t he cour t ' s i nt er j ect i ons and

r ul i ngs. Gonzl ez appeal s t he deni al of hi s mot i on f or a new

t r i a l .

We revi ew t he deni al of a Rul e 33 mot i on f or a new t r i al

f or " mani f est abuse of di scr et i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Val er i o, 676

F. 3d 237, 246 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . A new t r i al i s gr ant ed "spar i ngl y, "

and onl y wher e t her e woul d be "a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce and wher e

t he evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai nst t he ver di ct . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mer l i no, 592 F. 3d 22, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Wi l ker son, 251 F. 3d 273, 278 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . When

det er mi ni ng t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of chal l enged act s, a cour t

-22-


23/33

shoul d not gr ant a mot i on f or a new t r i al wher e a pr ocess, al t hough

i mper f ect , adequat el y pr ot ect ed t he def endant ' s r i ght s. Uni t ed

St at es v. Gl ant z, 810 F. 2d 316, 321 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . Rat her , t he

cour t must deci de whet her t he al l eged er r ors af f ect ed t he

def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s. Uni t ed St at es v. Meser ve, 271 F. 3d

314, 332 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Af t er al l , "t he Const i t ut i on ent i t l es a

cr i mi nal def endant t o a f ai r t r i al , not a mi stake- f r ee t r i al . " I d.

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1196 ( 1st Ci r .

1993) ) .

I n gener al , we have r ecogni zed t hat , "a j udge i s not a

mer e umpi r e; he i s t he gover nor of t he t r i al f or t he pur pose of

assur i ng i t s pr oper conduct , and has a per f ect r i ght - - al bei t a

r i ght t hat shoul d be exer ci sed wi t h car e - - t o par t i ci pat e act i vel y

i n t he t r i al pr oper . " Uni t ed St at es v. Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d 1,

33 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Logue v. Dore, 103 F. 3d 1040, 1045 ( 1st

Ci r . 1997) ) ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Tr i al j udges al so have

"br oad di scr et i on over t he scope of summat i ons. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Gr abi ec, 96 F. 3d 549, 552 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

Gonzl ez al l eges t hat , whi l e def ense counsel was " ar gui ng

t hat Cot t o was unwor t hy of bel i ef , " t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y

i nt er r upt ed hi m and st at ed: "Counsel , I assume t hat i s your

posi t i on, i t wi l l be f or t he j ur y t o det er mi ne based on t he

evi dence whet her he l i ed or not . " Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat t hi s

st atement by t he cour t i mpr oper l y "sent t he message t hat hi s

-23-


24/33

posi t i on was not one shar ed by t he cour t . " We di sagr ee. Fi r st ,

counsel shoul d r ef r ai n f r om maki ng st at ement s t hat convey a

per sonal opi ni on r el at i ng t o a wi t ness' s credi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Auch, 187 F. 3d 125, 131 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; Gr abi ec, 96 F. 3d

at 550 ( observi ng t hat t he rul e that counsel must not expr ess a

per sonal opi ni on, t hough gener al l y appl i ed t o pr osecut or s, "appl i es

bot h ways" ) . Second, t he cour t ' s st at ement di d not i ndi cat e,

ei t her expl i ci t l y or i mpl i ci t l y, t hat t he cour t di d not shar e

def ense counsel ' s posi t i on. Fur t her mor e, even i f t he j ur y coul d

have i nf er r ed anyt hi ng f r om t he cour t ' s st at ement , any pr ej udi ce

f r om such i nf er ence woul d have been cur ed by t he cour t ' s

i nst r uct i on t o di sr egard i t s comment s and admoni shment s t o counsel .

Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t gave t he f ol l owi ng i nst r uct i on:

Do not assume f r om anyt hi ng that I may havesai d t hat I have any opi ni on concerni ng any oft he i ssues i n t hi s case. Except f or myi nst r uct i ons t o you on t he l aw, you shoul ddi sr egar d anythi ng t hat I may have sai d dur i ngt he t r i al i n ar r i vi ng at your own f i ndi ngs ast o t he f acts. . . . You ar e t o dr awabsol ut el y no i nf er ence agai nst t he si de t owhom an admoni t i on of t he Cour t may have beenaddr essed dur i ng t he t r i al .

We assume t he j ur y t o have f ol l owed t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d 48, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

Gonzl ez al so compl ai ns t hat when def ense counseli nt ended t o use t r anscr i pt s t o r ef r esh a wi t ness t est i mony t o t he

j ur y, t he di st r i ct cour t i nt er r upt ed hi m and sai d " I wi l l r equest

t hat you ar gue, t he t r anscr i pt i s not i n evi dence. " Al t hough

-24-


25/33

Gonzl ez aver s t hat t he use of t r anscr i pt s may ensure t he accur acy

of t he r eci t at i on of a t est i mony, her e, def ense counsel was not

mer el y r eadi ng f r om t r anscr i pt s. Rat her , he was al so pr oj ect i ng

t he t r anscr i pt s f r omt he over head pr oj ect or and r ef er enci ng t hemas

evi dence. Si nce t hese t r anscr i pt s wer e not i n evi dence, we f i nd no

er r or i n t he cour t ' s i nt er j ect i on. See Her r i ng v. New Yor k, 422

U. S. 853, 862 ( 1975) ( r ecogni zi ng t he br oad di scr et i on of t he t r i al

j udge i n cl osi ng ar guments) . We not e t hat t he cour t di d not

pr event def ense counsel f r omar gui ng t he cont ent of t he t r anscr i pt s

or other wi se get t i ng hi s poi nt acr oss. Rat her , i t onl y i nst r uct ed

hi m not t o r ef er t o somet hi ng as evi dence t hat had not been

admi t t ed as such.

Next , Gonzl ez al l eges t hat whi l e def ense counsel was

ar gui ng t hat t he st i ng oper at i on was " poor l y pl anned" and t hat "out

of 17 peopl e, we have 15 or 16 who were mechani cs, t r uck dr i ver s, "

t he cour t i nt er r upt ed hi m and sai d t hat he was mi squot i ng t he

evi dence, t hat t her e was no "evi dence f or t hat amount of peopl e"

and t hat he shoul d "st i ck t o t he evi dence. " Ther e was no er r or .

The evi dence admi t t ed at t r i al si mpl y di d not suppor t def ense

counsel ' s cont ent i on. Faced wi t h t hi s mi squot i ng of t he evi dence,

i t was wi t hi n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di scr et i on t o i nt er r upt def ense

counsel ' s ar gument . See Uni t ed St ates v. Di Sant o, 86 F. 3d 1238,

1248 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( not i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i s "best

si t uat ed t o make a bat t l ef i el d assessment of t he i mpact t hat a

-25-


26/33

par t i cul ar pi ece of i mpr oper i nf or mat i on may have on a j ur y"

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Gmez, 67 F. 3d 933, 998 ( 1st Ci r .

1995) ) ) .

Gonzl ez al so al l eges t hat , whi l e def ense counsel was

ar gui ng about t he t i mi ng f or r et r i evi ng t he f i r ear ms f r omhi s home,

t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y i nt er r upt ed hi mand concl uded that he

was maki ng r ef erence t o puni shment and t hat t her e was an i ssue of

j ur y nul l i f i cat i on. The cour t ' s i nt er r upt i ons r esponded t o def ense

counsel ' s r ef er ence t o Gonzl ez havi ng been i n pr i son si nce Oct ober

2010, not bei ng back home si nce hi s ar r est , and not bei ng back home

f or more t han a year . Because t he argument s were di r ect ed at t he

gun charges and t he j ur y acqui t t ed Gonzl ez of al l such charges, we

need not deci de whet her t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on t hi s mat t er

was cor r ect , as any er r or woul d be harml ess. See Uni t ed St ates v.

Cr ochi er e, 129 F. 3d 233, 236 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hat t he

acqui t t al r ender ed t he al l eged er r or har ml ess) .

Gonzl ez al so chal l enges t he cour t ' s i nt er j ect i ons when

def ense counsel was ar gui ng t hat t he desi gn of t he st i ng oper at i on

was f l awed. I n maki ng hi s poi nt , def ense counsel st at ed t hat t he

oper at i on "at t r act ed peopl e si mpl y down and out , and i n need of

money"; t hat t hose at t r acted wer e "si mpl y poor and vul ner abl e" ; and

t hat t he gover nment shoul d "go af t er t he r eal dr ug t r af f i cker s,

[ t hat ] t hi s i sl and i s f ul l of dr ug t r af f i cker s. " The gover nment

obj ect ed t o t hese st atement s and t he cour t sust ai ned t he

-26-


27/33

obj ect i ons. Ther e was no er r or . Al t hough j ur or s have t he power t o

set an accused f r ee f or any reason or f or no r eason, t hei r dut y i s

t o appl y t he l aw as gi ven t o t hem by t he cour t . Uni t ed St at es v.

Appol on, 695 F. 3d 44, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . "Nei t her t he cour t nor

counsel shoul d encour age j ur or s t o exer ci se t hei r power t o

nul l i f y. " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bunchan, 626 F. 3d 29, 34

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Her e, by

suggest i ng t hat t her e ar e wor se peopl e out t her e, and t hat t he

gover nment shoul d go af t er t hem and not af t er t he poor and

vul ner abl e, def ense counsel was encour agi ng t he j ur y to di sr egar d

t he l aw and acqui t Gonzl ez. Thus, t he st at ement s were ai med at

j ur y nul l i f i cat i on and t he gover nment ' s obj ect i ons wer e pr oper l y

sust ai ned.

We need not r ecount i n det ai l t he addi t i onal

i nt er j ect i ons and gover nment obj ect i ons about whi ch Gonzl ez now

compl ai ns. For pr esent pur poses, i t suf f i ces t o say t hat we have

r evi ewed each of t hem i n t he cont ext of t he r ecor d as a whol e.

They i nvol ved ei t her def ense counsel ' s at t empt t o i nst r uct t he j ur y

as t o l egal i ssues, t o ar gue the ent r apment def ense despi t e bei ng

pr ecl uded f r om doi ng so by a pr i or cour t or der , def ense counsel ' s

opi ni on about t he cr edi bi l i t y of wi t nesses, or ar gument s

speci f i cal l y r el at ed t o t he gun char ges f or whi ch Gonzl ez was

acqui t t ed. Even i f t he cour t ' s r ul i ng on t hese mat t er s wer e

-27-


28/33

er r oneous, t hey woul d be harml ess. See Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 61- 62.

Addi t i onal l y, as di scussed supr a, f ol l owi ng cl osi ng

ar gument s, t he cour t expl i ci t l y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat , i n

r ender i ng i t s deci si on, i t shoul d not consi der t he cour t ' s comment s

and admoni shment s t o counsel , nor t he obj ect i ons or ar gument s made

by counsel .

Consequent l y, we concl ude t hat Gonzl ez was not

pr ej udi ced by t he t r i al cour t ' s r ul i ngs and i nt er j ect i ons, nor was

hi s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al i nf r i nged upon. Thus, t he di str i ct cour t

di d not mani f est l y abuse i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng Gonzl ez' s

mot i on f or a new t r i al . See Mer l i no, 592 F. 3d at 32.

2. The Government's rebuttal argument

Fi nal l y, Gonzl ez cl ai ms t hat t he government made some

i mpr oper r emar ks i n i t s r ebut t al ar gument whi ch r ender ed t he t r i al

unf ai r . Where a t i mel y obj ect i on was made, " [ w] e r evi ew de novo

whet her t he chal l enged por t i on of t he gover nment ' s cl osi ng ar gument

was i mpr oper and, i f so, whet her i t was harmf ul . " Appol on, 695

F. 3d at 66. The pr osecut or ' s i mpr oper st at ement s dur i ng cl osi ng

argument are consi der ed harmf ul i f t hey "so poi soned t he wel l t hat

t he t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y af f ect ed, t hus war r ant i ng a new

t r i al . " Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 62 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Azubi ke, 504 F. 3d 30, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gar za,

435 F. 3d 73, 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "A non- const i t ut i onal evi dent i ar y

er r or i s har ml ess . . . so l ong as i t i s hi ghl y pr obabl e t hat t he

-28-


29/33

er r or di d not i nf l uence t he ver di ct . " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, we f ocus on ( 1) t he

sever i t y of t he mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng whet her i t was i sol at ed

and/ or del i ber at e; ( 2) whet her cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons wer e gi ven;

and ( 3) t he st r engt h of t he evi dence agai nst t he def endant .

Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 62.

I n cont r ast , we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or "any par t of t he

gover nment ' s r ebut t al argument whi ch t he def endant f ai l ed t o obj ect

t o. " I d. at 64. To meet thi s "exact i ng st andar d, " i d. , t he

def endant must show t hat an er r or occur r ed, whi ch was cl ear or

obvi ous and whi ch not onl y af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al

r i ght s, but al so 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. I d. ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . "[ P] l ai n er r or r evi ew t ends

t o af f or d r el i ef . . . onl y f or ' bl ockbuster ' er r or s. " Rodr guez,

675 F. 3d at 64 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Dur i ng the rebut t al argument , t he government r esponded t o

Gonzl ez' s r ef er ence t hat t he "gover nment ha[d] a pr obl em" by

st at i ng: "Do you know how many t i mes t he government doesn' t have

evi dence l i ke you saw i n t hi s case?" The gover nment al so st at ed

t hat def ense counsel want ed t o conf use t he j ur y, si nce def ense

counsel was unabl e t o make Gonzl ez di sappear f r om t he vi deos

pl ayed at t r i al . Gonzl ez t i mel y obj ect ed t o bot h st at ement s, and

-29-


30/33

t he di st r i ct cour t over r ul ed bot h obj ect i ons. Gonzl ez now cl ai ms

t hat t he government i mpr oper l y compared t he evi dence i n t hi s case

t o t hat i n ot her cases and, t hus, engaged i n bol st er i ng, 10 and that

i t mi sst ated and di spar aged t he def ense st r at egy by t aki ng ai m at

def ense counsel .

The chal l enged government st at ements wer e not i mpr oper .

Regar di ng t he f i r st st at ement , def ense counsel i nvi t ed t he

pr osecut or ' s compar i son t o ot her cases by st at i ng that t he

gover nment "ha[ d] a pr obl em i n t hi s case . . . . They ar e ver y

concerned t hat t hey had t o r el y so much on Cot t o and Eusebi o

Her nndez t o pr ove t hei r char ges. " I t was r easonabl e f or t he

pr osecut or t o respond t hat i t di d not have a pr obl em because i n

t hi s case, unl i ke many ot her s, t her e was vi deo evi dence l i nki ng

Gonzl ez t o t he cr i mes char ged. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Garc a,

574 F. 3d 5, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "Our cases est abl i sh t hat some

l eeway i s appr opr i at e when t he gover nment ' s chal l enged comment s may

f ai r l y be seen as a r esponse t o compar abl e r emarks by def ense

counsel . ") . And cont r ar y t o Gonzl ez' s cont ent i ons, t he

government ' s comment s cannot f ai r l y be read to suggest t hat

evi dence not pr esent ed at t r i al suppor t ed t he def endant ' s gui l t .

10 We note t hat bol st er i ng gener al l y "occur s when a pr osecut ori mpl i es t hat a wi t ness' s t est i mony i s cor r obor at ed by evi denceknown t o t he gover nment but not known t o t he j ur y. " Uni t ed St at esv. Val di vi a, 680 F. 3d 33, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

-30-


31/33

I nst ead, t he pr osecut or was poi nt i ng out how much i ncul patory

evi dence t he gover nment had i nt r oduced at t r i al .

The pr osecut or ' s f ur t her suggest i ons t hat def ense counsel

was t r yi ng t o conf use t he j ur y because he coul d not make Gonzl ez

di sappear f r omt he vi deos, whi l e per haps i mpol i t i c, di d not r ender

t he t r i al unf ai r . These comment s, t oo, r ef er r ed t o t he st r engt h of

t he gover nment ' s case ( speci f i cal l y, t he f act t hat t her e was vi deo

evi dence) . Moreover , Uni t ed St ates v. Manni ng, whi ch Gonzl ez

ci t es f or hi s ar gument t hat t he comment s wer e i mpr oper , i nvol ved

st atement s much more egr egi ous t han t hose i n t hi s case: t her e, t he

pr osecut or st at ed t hat t he r ol e of t he def ense counsel i n a

cr i mi nal t r i al i s t o "cl oud t he i ssues or make smoke scr eens, " and

he "l i ken[ ed] t hemt o Shakespear e' s pl ayer s, f ul l of sound and f ur y

si gni f yi ng not hi ng. " 23 F. 3d 570, 573 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

Not hi ng l i ke t hat was sai d i n t hi s case.

Fi nal l y, Gonzl ez al l eges t hat t he gover nment mi sst at ed

t he l aw as t o " r easonabl e doubt " and "cr i mi nal i nt ent . " Si nce

Gonzl ez di d not cont emporaneousl y obj ect t o t hese al l egedl y

i mpr oper st at ement s, we r evi ew t hem onl y f or pl ai n er r or .

Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 64. Gonzl ez f ai l s t o meet t hat st andar d.

The st at ement r egar di ng " r easonabl e doubt " was made i n

t he cont ext of t he f i r earm char ges and Gonzl ez was acqui t t ed of

al l such char ges, whi ch makes cl ear t hat such al l eged er r or does

not meet t he st andar d f or pl ai n er r or . As t o t he ot her st at ement ,

-31-


32/33

t he gover nment sai d t hat "al l cr i mi nal i nt ent means i s t hat

[ Gonzl ez] knew he was br eaki ng t he l aw. " Gonzl ez has f ai l ed t o

show t hat , when r ead i n cont ext , t he st at ement was cl ear l y and

obvi ousl y er r oneous. Mor eover , af t er cl osi ng ar gument s, t he

di st r i ct cour t gave speci f i c i nst r uct i ons as t o what bot h cri mi nal

i nt ent and r easonabl e doubt meant . Gonzl ez does not poi nt t o

anyt hi ng i ndi cat i ng t hat t he j ur y di sr egar ded t hese i nst r uct i ons

and we or di nar i l y pr esume t hat j ur i es f ol l ow i nst r uct i ons. See i d.

at 63. He has si mpl y f ai l ed t o show t hat t he al l eged mi sst atement s

of t he l aw af f ect ed hi 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 reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d at 14; see al so Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d

at 65 ( not i ng t hat t he f act t hat def endant had obj ect ed t o t he

pr osecut or ' s st at ement s dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument , but had f ai l ed t o

do so dur i ng r ebut t al suggest ed t hat even t he def endant " f ai l ed t o

r egard t he comment s as havi ng a damagi ng ef f ect " ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ) . Thus, t he al l eged er r or s do not const i t ut e t he

"bl ockbust er " err or s r equi r ed t o sat i sf y t he pl ai n er r or st andar d.

Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 64.

III. Conclusion

The r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Gonzl ez was af f or ded a f ai r and

i mpar t i al t r i al , t hat he was not ent i t l ed t o ent r apment or dur ess

i nst r uct i ons, t hat t he deni al of t he r equest ed i nst r uct i ons on

i mpeachment of wi t nesses f or pr i or convi ct i ons di d not const i t ut e

-32-


33/33

r ever si bl e er r or , and t hat hi s convi ct i on was not t ai nt ed by

pr ej udi ci al er r or ei t her f r om t he di str i ct cour t or i n t he

gover nment ' s r ebut t al ar gument . Accor di ngl y, hi s convi ct i on i s

af f i r med.

Affirmed.

33

united states v. gonzalez-perez, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents