Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01249/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Gutierrez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1249 

___________

United States of America, *

* 

Plaintiff-Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Minnesota.

Carlos Gutierrez, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 10, 2004

 Filed: May 4, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Carlos Gutierrez was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, possession with intent to

distribute approximately 5.9 kilograms of cocaine, and possession with intent to

distribute approximately 443 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. A jury found

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304 
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Gutierrez guilty of these charges. The district court1

 sentenced Gutierrez to 360

months imprisonment. Gutierrez appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

A. English Transcripts of Spanish Conversations

At trial, the government presented several recordings of court-authorized

wiretaps that linked Gutierrez to a large-scale drug conspiracy. All of these recorded

conversations were in Spanish. Gutierrez contends that the admission of the English

transcripts violated his due process rights because the transcripts lacked proper

foundation. We disagree. 

The government introduced the English transcripts of the wiretapped Spanish

conversations during the testimony of Officer Luis Porras, a police officer who

worked undercover in the investigation that led to Gutierrez’s arrest. Officer Porras

testified that he is fluent in written and spoken Spanish and that he has worked as an

undercover officer on more than one hundred occasions, almost always with Spanishspeaking individuals. During the investigation in this case, Officer Porras

communicated with Gutierrez’s coconspirator, Luis Andrade, several times. The two

always spoke Spanish and had no difficulties understanding each other. 

Before trial, Officer Porras listened to all of the recorded conversations and

reviewed each of the transcripts. At trial, Officer Porras identified the speakers in the

conversations and testified that the transcripts were accurate translations. We agree

with the district court that Officer Porras was qualified to opine as to the accuracy of

the transcripts. We find that his testimony provided a sufficient foundation for the

introduction of the transcripts. 

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304 
-3-

Gutierrez next argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury

regarding the transcripts. The district court instructed as follows:

There is a typewritten transcript which you have in front of you

of the tape recording that you are about to hear. The tape recording, or

the transcript undertakes to provide a translation of the language that

you are about to hear, and also to identify the speakers who are engaged

in the conversation.

Let me clarify for you that you are permitted to have the transcript

for the limited purpose of helping you follow the conversation as you

listen to the tape recording, and to help you keep track of the speakers.

The tape recording itself, however, is the primary evidence of its

own contents. In particular, you’re specifically instructed as to whether

the transcript correctly or incorrectly reflects the identity of the speakers.

That is for you to decide based upon what you’ve heard about the

preparation of the transcript and upon your own examination of the

transcript in relation to what you hear on the tape recording. 

And also, let me just state that if you find that the transcript is in

any respect incorrect or unreliable, then you should disregard it to that

extent. Because the tape recording itself is the primary evidence of its

contents. 

The district court’s instruction is patterned after § 2.06 of the Eighth Circuit

Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions. As this court recently held in United

States v. Gonzalez, — F.3d —, 2004 WL 875726, at *3 (8th Cir. Apr. 26, 2004), this

model instruction is not well suited for transcripts of conversations originally spoken

in a foreign language, as it presumes the jurors can understand the foreign language

spoken in the original conversation. When dealing with English transcripts of

recorded conversations that were originally spoken in a foreign language, district

courts are encouraged to use an instruction similar to the Seventh Circuit’s Federal

Criminal Jury Instruction § 3.18. See id., at *3-4. That instruction provides:

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304 
2

We note that Gutierrez’s attorney had access to the wiretap recordings and

transcripts prior to trial and that a Spanish interpreter testified on behalf of Gutierrez

at trial.

-4-

Among the exhibits admitted during the trial were recordings that

contained conversations in the _______ language. You were also

provided with English transcripts of those conversations. The transcripts

were provided to you [by the government] so that you could consider the

content of the conversations on the recordings.

Whether a transcript is an accurate translation, in whole or in part,

is for you to decide. In considering whether a transcript accurately

describes the meaning of a conversation, you should consider the

testimony presented to you regarding how, and by whom, the transcript

was made. You may consider the knowledge, training, and experience

of the translator, as well as the nature of the conversation and the

reasonableness of the translation in light of all the evidence in the case.

You should not rely in any way on any knowledge you may have of the

language spoken on the recording; your consideration of the transcripts

should be based on the evidence introduced in the trial. 

Seventh Circuit Federal Criminal Jury Instructions § 3.18, Foreign Language

Recordings/Transcripts in English (1999). 

Gutierrez did not suffer prejudice by the trial court’s use of the pattern Eighth

Circuit instruction. See Smith v. Chase Group, Inc., 354 F.3d 801, 808 (8th Cir.

2004) (“[E]rrors regarding jury instructions will not demand reversal unless they

result in prejudice to the appealing party.”). The purpose of an appropriate jury

instruction would have been to inform the jury of its duty to determine the accuracy

of the transcripts. Gutierrez failed to identify any inaccuracies in the transcripts to

the district court, nor does he identify any inaccuracies on appeal.2

 Consequently, we

must assume the transcripts were accurate. United States v. Riascos, 944 F.2d 442,

444 (8th Cir. 1991). Because Gutierrez failed to allege that the transcripts were

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304 
3

Gutierrez argues that Andrade’s testimony was not credible due to Andrade’s

desire to receive a reduced sentence. This argument is unpersuasive, for we have

consistently held that issues of witness credibility are for a jury to decide. See United

States v. Santos-Garcia, 313 F.3d 1073, 1081 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Harris,

310 F.3d 1105, 1111 (8th Cir. 2002). 

-5-

inaccurate, he cannot show that he suffered prejudice as a result of the instruction

given by the district court. 

B. Other Issues

Gutierrez also contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to

support his conviction. We must reject this challenge if “any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In making this determination, we

examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving it the benefit

of all reasonable inferences. United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 697 (8th Cir.

2002).

At trial, Luis Andrade testified that Gutierrez supplied him with large quantities

of methamphetamine and cocaine. Andrade stated that Gutierrez directed two

couriers to transport approximately six kilograms of cocaine and approximately one

pound of methamphetamine to Minnesota in September 1998. Seized drugs and

several wiretapped conversations regarding drug shipments corroborated this

testimony. Hotel records linking Gutierrez to the couriers and the September 1998

drug shipment further corroborated Andrade’s testimony. We find that the

government presented sufficient evidence to support Gutierrez’s conviction.3

Gutierrez also challenges the district court’s imposition of a role-in-the-offense

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The district court determined that a fourlevel increase was appropriate because Gutierrez led and organized a drug conspiracy.

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304 
-6-

The record supports the district court’s finding that Gutierrez directed five or more

people and exercised decision-making authority in the drug conspiracy: he arranged

drug transactions in California, coordinated the shipment of drugs to Minnesota

through several couriers, and received payment for the drugs. We cannot say the

district court clearly erred by imposing a leadership enhancement under these

circumstances. See United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2000)

(holding that the terms “organizer” and “leader” are to be interpreted broadly).

We have considered the other arguments raised by Gutierrez on appeal and find

they are without merit. The judgment and sentence of the district court are affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1249 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763304