united states v. rosario-camacho, 1st cir. (2015)

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


2/35

At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J une 25, 2015

-2-


3/35


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-


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-


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-


7/35

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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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 coconspi 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 coconspi 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-


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-


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-


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-


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 codef 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 cooper 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 codef 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-


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-


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-


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 .

united states v. rosario-camacho, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents