FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13456 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 1 0 0 2 3 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s N E L S O N R E Y E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 9, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N e ls o n R e y e s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o ro b s tru c tio n o f

a b o a r d in g , in2

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 23 7(a) (2)( A ), and u nautho ri ze d entry i nt o C ub an t e rr i t or i a l w a t e r s , i n vi ol a t i on of 50 U . S . C . § 192 a nd 33 C . F . R . §§ 107. 215, 1 0 7 .2 3 0 . R e y e s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in de ny i ng R e y e s ’ s m ot i on f orm i s tr i a l or , a l t e rna t i ve l y , a ne w tr i a l be c a us e he di d not c a rry hi s bur de n of

s how i ng tha tr e m a r ks by the pr os e c ut orr e f e r e nc i ng the l a c k of ev id en ce fr o m th e w itn es se s w er e m an ifes tl y in ten d ed to co m m en t o n R ey es ’s f a i l ur e t o t e s t i f

y , ortha tthe y ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d ha ve be e n c ons true d a s s uc h by the j u ry . W e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury r e turne d a thr e e - c ounti ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tR e y e s a nd M od el i n M ac hado and charged them w i th forci bl y r es i st i ng a boardi ng autho ri ze d by f e de r a l l a w , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2237( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( “ C ount2" ) , a nd e nt e r i ng C uba n t e rr i t or i a l w a t e r s w i thoutw r i tt e n pe r m i s s i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 50 U . S . C . § 192 a n d 3 3 C .F .R . § § 1 0 7 .2 1 5 , 1 0 7 .2 3 0 ( “C o u n t 3 " ) . R 1 - 1 . R e y e s p le d n o t g u ilty . D ur i ng ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s a ttr i a l , R e y e s ’ s c ouns e l r e pr e s e nt e d tha tthe evi dence w ou l d sho w thatR ey es di d n otre si stthe bo ar di ng bu tthathe w as beat en by the C oastG uard offi ce rs . R 2 at44 -46. H e a l so sugg es t ed thatthe C oastG uard c ha r ge d R e y e s w i th obs truc t i ng the boa r di ng i n or de rt o “ j us t i f y ” i t s “ ove rz e a l ous tr e a tm e n t o f

h im .” I d . a t 4 6 .3

B r ooke A l l i s on M i l l a r d, a C oa s tG ua r d L i e ut e na nts t a t i one d i n F l or i da on a patrol bo at , the M at agorda, t es t i fi ed that , on Jul y 19, 20 06 , offi ce rs on her boat s pott e d a s outhbound go- f a s tboa t . I d. a t47- 53. T he M a t a gor da tr i e d t o appr e he nd th e g o - f a s t b o a t, b u t it f

le d . I d . a t 5 4 - 5 5 . T h e y p u r s u e d th e b o a t f o rap p r o x im a te ly f iv e a n d a h a lf

h o u r s u n til it s to p p e d b e c a u s e o f m e c h a n ic a l p r o b le m s . I d . W h ile th e g o - f a s t b o a t w a s f

le e in g , it e n te r e d C u b a n w a te r s a t le a s t tw ic e . I d . a t 5 5 . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, L i e ut e na ntM i l l a r d s a i d tha t , w hi l e w a t c hi ng the of f i c e r s boa r di ng the go- f

a s tboa tf r om the M a t a gor da , s he s a w R e y e s r e s i s tbe i ng ha ndc uf f e d. I d. a t65- 67. M a c ha do, the ope r a t orof the boa t , c om pl i e d w i th the of f i c e r s ’ or de rt o puthi s ha nds up, butR e y e s m ove d t o the f r ontof the boa ta nd gotdow n on the de c k. I d. a t67. M a nue l H e rna nde z , the M a t a gor da ’ s a s s i s t a nt a d m in is tr a to r , w a s th e o p e r a to ro f th e in f r a r e d c a m e r a o n th e s h ip . I d . a t 7 9 - 8 1 . H e r e c o r d e d th e c h a s e a n d th e b o a r d in g a n d te s tif ie d th a t th e r e c o r d in g a c c u r a te ly d e p ic te d th e e v e n ts o f

th e e v e n in g . I d . a t 9 2 - 9 3 . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , R ey es ’ s c ou nsel i ntrodu ce d tw o st i l l pi ctures t aken fro m th e i n frared reco rd i n g . Id . at9 4 -9 6 , 9 8 -9 9 ; E x h s. N R 1 , N R 2 . In th e fi rst p ic tu r e , th e c iv ilia n s o n th e b o a t w e r e n o t v is ib le , a lth o u g h th e f ir s t b o a r d in g p a r ty m e m be rw a s ge tt i ng on the boa t . R 2 a t97- 98; E xh. N R 1. H e rna nde z s a i d tha the sa w on e of the ci vi l i ans r em ai ni ng st andi ng w i th h i s hands ra i se d w hi l e the other4

m ov ed forw ar d and go tdo w n b el ow the si de of the bo atand w as no tvi si bl e. Id. at 97 -103 . O n redi re ct , H ernand ez t es t i fi ed thatthe ca m er a c anno tre cord heat i m a ge s thr ough the s i de of the boa t , s o a ny thi ng tha thappe ne d on the de c k be l ow th e s id e s o f

th e b o a t w a s n o t v is ib le . I d . a t 1 0 4 . T he f ourm e m be r s of

the boa r di ng pa r ty e a c h t e s t i f i e d. I d. a t106- 07, 148- 49 ; R 3 at18 9-90 , 24 0-41 . A l l m em bers of the bo ar di ng t ea m t es t i fi ed thatthe m en on the boa tw e r e or de r e d t o putthe i rha nds up, a nd, w hi l e M a c ha do c om pl i e d, R e y e s m ove d t o the f

r ontof the boa t , w he r e the r e w a s a c abi n. R 2 a t119- 20, 150- 52; R 3 a t194- 95, 243. I ti s unc l e a rw he the rR e y e s w a s s t a ndi ng, kne e l i ng, orl y i ng o n th e d e c k w h e n th e o f f ic e r s b o a r d e d . R 2 a t 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 5 3 ; R 3 a t 1 7 2 - 7 5 , 2 1 4 . A dd i t i on al l y, the bo ar di ng party’ s tra nsl at or m ay have ordered the m en t o g et do w n as he w as bo ar di ng . R 3 at24 3, 24 9-50 , 26 0. T he offi ce rs t es t i fi ed that R e y e s r e s is te d b e in g h a n d c u f f e d . R 2 a t 1 2 2 - 2 4 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 4 ; R 3 a t 1 9 6 - 9 7 , 2 4 6 . T he tw o of

f i c e r s w ho s ubdue d R e y e s both s a i d tha the w a s punc hi ng, ki c ki ng, a nd b itin g th e m w h ile o n th e d e c k . R 2 a t 1 5 4 ; R 3 a t 1 6 5 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 1 . T h e y u s e d s tr e n g th t e c hni que s a nd s truc k R e y e s w i th the i re l bow s a nd kne e s i n or de rt o s ubdue a nd ha ndc uf f hi m . R 2 a t152; R 3 a t164- 65, 198- 200. O nc e R e y e s w a s ha ndc uf f e d, he w a s c om pl i a nta nd w a s nots truc k a ga i n. R 2 a t148; R 3 a t166, 202- 03. A tthe c onc l us i on of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e - i n- c hi e f , the de f e ns e r e s t e d w i thout5

in tr o d u c in g a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e o rc a llin g a n y w itn e s s e s . R 3 a t 2 6 2 - 6 3 . D ur i ng hi s c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut ors t a t e d tha t“ [ i ] n hi s ope ni ng s t a t e m e ntde f

e ns e c ouns e l t ol d y ou tha tthe de f e nda ntR e y e s di d e xa c t l y w ha the w as t ol d t o d o. Is thattrue? H as thatbeen veri fi ed by the evi dence, the evi dence, tha ty ou he a r d c om e f

r om tha tw i tne s s s t a nd? ” I d. a t270. L a t e ri n hi s c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut ors t a t e d:

N ow the defendant , he has no b urden h er e. T he bu rden s ta r ts w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d s ta y s w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. W e e m b r a c e th a t. I t is o u rb u r d e n . B u t if y o u r e m o v e th e o n ly expl anat i on , the on l y j ust i fi ca t i on , the on l y s etof fa ct s that ha[s ] been proffer ed t o you throu gh the w i tness st and, and that is R e y e s r e f

u s e d to c o m p ly s o w e h a d to u s e f o r c e to g a in h is c o m p lia n c e , y o u c a n f

o r g e t ab o u t th a t. I d. a t272- 73. D e f

e ns e c ouns e l obj e c t e d a f t e rboth of

the s e s t a t e m e nt s . I d. a t270, 27 3. A ft ercl osi ng ar gu m ent s, R ey es ’ s c ou nsel m ov ed for am i stri al and con t ended thatthe go vernm entshi ft ed the bu rden of proo f a nd thati t s c om m ent s w er e pr obabl y i nt e rpr e t e d a s c om m e nt s on R e y e s ’ s r e m a i ni ng s i l e nt . I d. a t290. T he di s tr i c tj udge not e d tha the di d nothe a ra ny thi ng s uf f i c i e ntt o m e r i ta m i s tr i a l but s ta te d th a t R e y e s c o u ld m a k e a p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n c itin g th e tr a n s c r ip t if n e c e s s a ry . Id. at29 1. T he j ud ge then i nstruct ed the j urors thatthey c ou l d n otconsi der the fa ct tha tR e y e s di d nott e s t i f y , be c a us e he w a s unde rno obl i ga t i on t o do s o a nd s t a t e m e nt s m a de by the l a w y e r s w e r e note vi de nc e . I d. a t293- 94. T he j ury f ound6

R e y e s gui l ty on both c ount s . I d. a t304; R 1- 55. F ol l ow i ng the verdi ct , R ey es ’ s c ou nsel fi l ed a m ot i on for am i stri al or, a lte rn a tiv e ly , f

o ra n e w tr ia l. R 1 - 6 3 . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t a r e f e r e n c e to R e y e s ’ s s i l e nc e c oul d notha ve be e n i nvi t e d s i nc e i toc c urr e d dur i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s i ni t i a l c l os i ng a r gum e nt . I d. a t5- 6. T he pr os e c ut orha d r e f e rr e d t o a l a c k of t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e tw i c e , appa r e nt l y s how i ng m a ni f e s ti nt e ntt o c om m e nt on R ey es ’ s nott es t i fy i ng . Id. at6-7. E ven i f apl ausi bl e e xp l anat i on had b ee n gi ve n f orthe r e m a r k, c ouns e l c ont e nde d tha tthe j ury ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d ha ve co n stru ed th e rem ark t o refer to R eyes’ s d eci si o n n o tt o t est i fy. Id . at7 . F i n al l y, de f e ns e c ouns e l a r gue d tha ta ny e rr orc oul d notbe c ons i de r e d ha r m l e s s be c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s notove rw he l m i ng a nd no c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on w a s gi ve n. I d. a t7- 9. T he di s tr i c tj udge de ni e d the m ot i on. F i r s t , the j udge c onc l ude d tha tthe c om m e ntw a s notm a ni f e s t l y i nt e nde d t o r e f

e rt o R e y e s ’ s de c i s i on t o nott e s t i f y but ra ther i tre fe rr ed t o a fa i l ure by the defens e genera l l y t o o ff ert es t i m on i al evi dence t o r e butthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e . R 1- 68 a t1- 2. T he j udge the n de t e r m i ne d tha tthe j ury w oul d notne c e s s a r i l y c ons i de rthe r e m a r k t o r e f e rt o R e y e s ’ s nott e s t i f

y i ng b u t r a th e ra s a c o m m e n t ab o u t th e lo g ic a l in f e r e n c e s f r o m th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . I d. a t2. F i na l l y , the j udge c onc l ude d tha tthe pr os e c ut ordi d nots hi f tthe bur de n of proo f bec ause the i nstruct i on on the bu rden of proo f e l i m i nat ed any prej ud i ce7

c a u s e d b y th e p r o s e c u to r ’s r e m a r k s . I d . a t 3 . T h e ju d g e s e n te n c e d R e y e s to e ig h te e n m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON R e y e s a r gue s on appe a l tha tthe pr os e c ut or ’ s c om m e nt s w e r e i m pr ope ra nd ci t es U ni t ed S t at es v. L eQ ui re , 94 3 F . 2d 15 54 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). H e c on t ends that the pr os e c ut orm a ni f

e s t l y i nt e nde d t o c om m e nton hi s s i l e nc e , e s pe c i a l l y s i nc e he di d s o dur i ng hi s i ni t i a l c l os i ng a r gum e nta nd noti n r e s pons e t o a n a r gum e ntby the d e f e n s e , a n d h e m e n tio n e d th e la c k o f te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e tw ic e . R e y e s s u b m its thatthe re m ark h ad t o ref ert o h i s f

ai l ure t o t es t i fy because the prosecut or re fe rr ed to e v id e n c e f

r o m w itn e s s e s , w h ile th e d e f e n s e h a d s u b m itte d o n ly tw o p ic tu r e s in to e vi de nc e . R e y e s a r gue s tha tthe j ury c oul d notha ve c ons true d the r e m a r k i n a ny w a y othe rtha n r e f

e r e nc i ng the f

a c ttha tR e y e s di d nott e s t i f y be c a us e the pr os e c ut orm e nt i one d onl y e vi de nc e f r om w i tne s s e s . F i na l l y , he c ont e nds tha tthe e rr orc a nnotbe c ons i de r e d ha r m l e s s be c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s notove rw he l m i ng, a nd the r e w a s no c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on. B ec au se th e d istrict j u d g e h as th e o p p o rtu n ity to o b se rv e th e p ro se cu to r’s dem ea no r f

i rs thand , the deci si on t o d eny am ot i on for am i stri al base d o n i m prop er re m arks du ri ng cl osi ng ar gu m enti s r evi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. W a t s on, 866 F . 2d 381, 386 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . T o de t e r m i ne w he the ra pr os e c ut or8

h as i m p erm i ssi b l y co m m en t ed o n a d efen d an t ' s d eci si o n n o tt o t est i fy, “ co u rt s m u st i nq ui re w hether the st at em ent‘ w as m ani fe st l y i nt ended o r w as of such chara ct er ’ tha tthe j ury w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y c ons true i ta s a c om m e nton the f a i l ur e of the ac cuse d t o t es t i fy . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C hi ri no s, 11 2 F . 3d 10 89 , 10 99 (11th C i r. 1997) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he de f e nda ntha s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tone of the tw o cri t er i a e xi st s. U ni t ed S t at es v. K no w l es , 66 F . 3d 11 46 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 1995) . W e “ w i l l notf

i nd tha ta pr os e c ut orm a ni f e s t l y i nt e nde d t o c om m e nton a defe nd ant ' s f

ai l ure t o t es t i fy i f s om e other e xp l anat i on for the prosecut or' s r em ark i s e qu al l y pl ausi bl e. ” C hi ri no s, 11 2 F . 3d at10 99 . T here fore , i f aneutra l ex p l an at i o n fo r th e p ro secu t o r’ s rem ark s ex i st s, th en th ere w as n o “ ‘ m an i fest i nt e nt . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 13 F . 3d 1464, 1474 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng W a t s on, 866 F . 2d a t386) . T o de c i de w he the rthe j ury w oul d c ons true a s t a t e m e nt as a c om m enton the fa i l ure of the ac cuse d t o t es t i fy , “ ‘ the qu es t i on i s notw hether th e ju ry p o s s ib ly o re v e n p r o b ab ly w o u ld v ie w th e c h a lle n g e d r e m a r k in th is m a nne r , butw he the rthe j ury ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d ha ve done s o. ’ ” C hi r i nos , 112 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 9 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . D ur i ng hi s c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut ori n L e Q ui r e t ol d the j ury tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s di s a dva nt a ge d by the f a c ttha the di d not“ ha ve the gut s ” t o ge ton th e s ta n d a n d te ll h is s id e o f th e s to ry . 9 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 5 6 4 . W e d e te r m in e d th a t th is9

r e m a r k w a s pr obabl y not“ m a ni f e s t l y i nt e nde d” t o c om m e nton the de f e nda nt ’ s not t es t i fy i ng , because the prosecut or pres ent ed a pl ausi bl e a l t ernat i ve thatthe re m ark w a s in v ite d b y th e d e f

e n s e ’s a c c u s a tio n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s w itn e s s e s w e r e lia r s . Id. at15 65 . A l tho ug h w e r ec og ni ze d thatthe com m entcoul d n othave been in te rp r e te d b y th e ju ry a s a n y th in g b u t a c o m m e n t o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s s ile n c e , id ., w e c onc l ude d tha tthe e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s be c a us e the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tthe de f e nda ntw a s ove rw he l m i ng, a nd the di s tr i c tj udge ga ve a c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on, i d. a t1567. I n W a t s on, a f

t e rthe de f

e ns e e m pha s i z e d dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nttha tthe gove rnm e ntha d f

a i l e d t o di s pr ove the de f e ns e ’ s a l t e rna t i ve e xpl a na t i ons of the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e , the pr os e c ut orr e s ponde d by a dvi s i ng the j ury tha tW a t s on ha d no d u ty to te s tif

y , b u t th a t, if

th e r e w a s s o m e o n e w h o c o u ld h a v e te s tif ie d d if f e r e n tly th a n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a lle g a tio n s a s to w h a t h a d o c c u rr e d , th e d e f e n d a n t w o u ld ha ve know n w hi c h w i tne s s e s t o c a l l . 866 F . 2d a t384. W e de t e r m i ne d tha tthe r e m a r ks w e r e a pe r m i s s i bl e c om m e nton the de f e ns e ’ s f a i l ur e t o c ount e rthe e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d w e r e n o t m a n if e s tly in te n d e d to c om m e nton the de f

e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o nott e s t i f y . I d. a t386. W e a l s o not e d tha tthe di stri ctj ud ge coul d h ave c on si dere d the prosec ut or’ s c om m entre m i nd i ng the j ury tha tthe de f

e nda ntdi d notha ve t o t e s t i f y t o ha ve ne ga t e d a ny pos s i bi l i ty tha tthe10

ju ry w o u ld h a v e m is in te rp r e te d th e r e m a r k s . I d . S i m i l ar l y, i n C hi ri no s, the prosec ut or fi rs tas ked the j ury m em bers w hether they had heard any w i tness t es t i m on y di sput i ng thata di agra m of a r oo m w as dr a w n pr ope r l y . 112 F . 3d a t1099. L a t e r , the pr os e c ut ort ol d the j ury tha tonl y one pe r s on ha d t e s t i f

i e d r e ga r di ng phot ogr aphs t a ke n of a r oom , a nd the pr os e c ut or the n a s ke d the j ury w he the ri tha d he a r d a ny one s a y tha tthe phot ogr aph w a s not th e r o o m in q u e s tio n . I d . W e d e c id e d th a t th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e p r o p e rc o m m e n ts on the defense ’ s f

ai l ure t o cou nt eror expl ai n the evi dence. Id. at11 00 . F urther, w e de t e r m i ne d tha tthe c om m e nt s w oul d notne c e s s a r i l y ha ve be e n c ons true d by the j ury a s a c om m e nton the f a i l ur e of the de f e nda ntt o t e s t i f

y a nd not e d tha tthe d is tr ic t ju d g e h a d “in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t th e la w d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a d e f e n d a n t to t e s t i f y t o pr ove hi s i nnoc e nc e ort o pr oduc e a ny e vi de nc e a ta l l . ” I d. F i na l l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B l a nke ns hi p, 382 F . 3d 1110 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , the pr os e c ut ori n c l os i ng a r gum e ntnot e d tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d the bur de n of pr oof a n d in f o r m e d th e ju ry th a t, if

th e d e f e n s e w a n te d th e ju ry to b e lie v e a f a c t, it h a d to p r o v e th a t f

a c t. I d . a t 1 1 2 7 . W e r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e s ta te m e n t w a s le g a lly i nc orr e c t , buthe l d tha ti tw a s notm a ni f e s t l y i nt e nde d t o c om m e nton the d ef en d an t’ s s il en ce b ec au se th e p ro se cu to r e x p re ss ly re co g n ized th e d ef en d an t’ s ri gh tt o rem ai n si l ent . Id. at11 28 . T he j ury m ay have i nt erpret ed the st at em ent s a s11

re fe rr i ng t o a fa i l ure of the defense general l y. Id. W e a dd i t i on al l y r ec og ni ze d that a n is o la te d c o m m e n t w o u ld n e e d to b e “m u c h m o r e p r e ju d ic ia l” to m e r it a r e v e r s a l. I d . R ey es as se rt s thatthe deci si on of the di stri ctj ud ge shou l d b e r ever se d b as ed o n o u rd e c is io n in L e Q u ir e , w h ic h is d is tin g u is h ab le . I n th is c a s e , a s in L e Q u ir e , it appe a r s tha tthe pr os e c ut ordi d notm a ni f e s t l y i nt e nd t o r e f

e rt o R e y e s ’ s de c i s i on nott o t e s t i f

y . I ns t e a d, i ti s l i ke l y tha tthe pr os e c ut orw a s r e f e rr i ng t o the f

a i l ur e of th e d e f e n s e to r e b u t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e th a t R e y e s r e s is te d th e b o a r d in g . T here fore , the prosecut or’ s r ef er ence t o the w i tness es pl ausi bl y c ou l d h ave been m ea ntt o ref

ert o the fa ctthatevery off i ce r w ho w i tness ed the event s s ai d that R e y e s r e s i s t e d the boa r di ng, s i nc e the r e c or di ng a nd pi c tur e s w e r e i nc onc l us i ve r e ga r di ng R e y e s ’ s r e s i s t a nc e . G i ve n thi s pl a us i bl e e xpl a na t i on, R e y e s ha s not s h o w n th a t th e p r o s e c u to rm a n if e s tly in te n d e d to c o m m e n t o n h is s ile n c e . C h ir in o s , 1 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 9 - 1 1 0 0 ( d e te r m in in g th a t th e r e is n o m a n if e s t in te n t to c om m e nton a de f

e nda nt ’ s nott e s t i f

y i ng w he n a pl a us i bl e , pr ope re xpl a na t i on e x is ts ) . U nl i ke L eQ ui re , the j ury i n thi s c as e w ou l d n otnece ss ar i l y have c on strued the prosecut or’ s s t at em ent s a s are fe re nce t o R ey es ’ s r i gh tno tt o t es t i fy . In L e Q u ir e , th e p r o s e c u to rto ld th e ju ry th a t th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t “h a v e th e g u ts ” to12

ta k e th e w itn e s s s ta n d , w h ic h e x p r e s s ly c o m m e n te d o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to s ile n c e . 9 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 5 6 4 . I n th is c a s e , th e p r o s e c u to rd id n o t e x p r e s s ly r e f e rto R e y e s ’s d e c is io n n o t to te s tif y . I n s te a d , th e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n t w a s s im ila rto thati n C hi ri no s, w here the prosecut or as ked the j ury m em bers i f they had heard an y co n trary ev i d en ce fro m th e w i tn esses. A s i n C h i ri n o s, th e j u ry i n th i s case c oul d ha ve c ons true d the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a r ks a s r e f e r e nc i ng a f

a i l ur e of the d e f e n s e to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e r a th e rth a n a f a ilu r e o f th e d e f e n d a n t to te s tif

y . C hi r i nos , 112 F . 3d a t1099- 1100. T hi s c onc l us i on i s e s pe c i a l l y true e ve n though th e p r o s e c u to rm e n tio n e d R e y e s b o th tim e s b e c a u s e th e p r o s e c u to rp r e f a c e d h is ar gu m entas a r ebut t al t o the defense ’ s s t at em entdu ri ng op eni ng ar gu m entthat R e y e s di d e xa c t l y w ha the w a s a s ke d t o do, a nd the pr os e c ut orl a t e rr e m i nde d the j ury thaton l y the go vernm entca rr i ed the bu rden of proo f. W at son, 86 6 F . 2d at 38 6. T here fore , the j ury w ou l d n otnece ss ar i l y have c on strued the re m arks as r e f e r e n c in g R e y e s ’s r ig h t n o t to te s tif y . C h ir in o s , 1 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 9 - 1 1 0 0 . S i gn i fi ca nt l y, the di stri ctj ud ge’ s i nstruct i on s, i ss ued al m osti m m edi at el y a ft er R e y e s ’ s c ouns e l m ove d f orm i s tr i a l , r e m i nde d the j ury tha tR e y e s w a s unde rno o b lig a tio n to te s tif

y a n d th a t th e a r g u m e n ts o f th e la w y e r s w e r e n o t e v id e n c e . C hi r i nos , 112 F . 3d a t1100. R e y e s ha s notc a rr i e d hi s bur de n of s how i ng tha tthe r e m a r ks i n que s t i on13

w e r e m a ni f

e s t l y i nt e nde d t o c om m e nton hi s f a i l ur e t o t e s t i f

y be c a us e the p r o s e c u to r ’s r e f

e r e n c e to th e w itn e s s e s p la u s ib ly c o u ld h a v e b e e n m e a n t to r e f e rto the f a c ttha te ve ry of

f i c e rw ho w i tne s s e d the e ve nt s s a i d tha tR e y e s r e s i s t e d the bo ar di ng . F urtherm ore, the re m arks w ou l d n otnece ss ar i l y have been construed as r e f e rr i ng t o R e y e s ’ s s i l e nc e by the j ur or s , w ho c oul d ha ve c ons true d the prosec ut or’ s r em arks as re fe re nci ng a f ai l ure of the defense t o p re se ntevi dence r a the rtha n a s a f

a i l ur e of R e y e s t o t e s t i f

y . T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tj udge di d not ab u s e h is d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g R e y e s ’s m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , a n e w tr ia l. I I I . CONCL US I ON R e y e s ha s appe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i on f orobs truc t i on of

a boa r di ng a nd u n a u th o r iz e d e n try in to C u b a n te rr ito r ia l w a te r s . B e c a u s e R e y e s h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th a t th e s u b

je c t r e m a r k s w e r e in te n d e d to c o m m e n t o n h is f a i l ur e t o t e s t i f

y , ortha tthe y ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d ha ve be e n c ons true d a s s uc h by the ju ry , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d e n y in g R e y e s ’s m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , a n ew tri al w as ap p ro p ri at e. T h erefo re, R eyes’ s co n v i ct i o n i s AF F I RME D.