# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 34 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mi gu el Zarco

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 18
Fi le d: Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Mi gu el Zarco of co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h i n t e n t to

di st rib ut e an d to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m 1

Th e H o n or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , t he n Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a, no w Ci rcu it Ju dg e fo r th e Uni te d S ta te s C ou rt o f App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h C irc ui t.to th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d fiv e y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Zarco ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on , cl ai m in g fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

t h a t i t was rev ers ab le erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t no t to pr oh ib it th e pr os ecu to r fro m

refe rri ng to th e ch arg ed cri m e as a “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy” du rin g tri al

. Zarco arg ue s

th at th e pr os ecu to r’s us e of th at ph ras e crea te d a st ru ct ur al erro r th at vi ol at ed hi s du e

pr oc es s rig ht s. Bu t even if th e erro r was no t st ru ct ur al

, he m ai nt ai ns th at rev ers al is

warra nt ed be cau se th e err or in fect ed th e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s. We affir m

.

The Gov ern m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce at tri al th at Zarco co ns pi red to di st rib ut e

su bs ta nt ia l qu an ti ti es of m et ha m ph et am in e in Ca l i fo rn ia

, Utah

, an d Nor th Dak ot a.

Dur in g op en in g st at em en ts

, th e pr os ecu to r sa id th at “ in Nor th Dak ot a th e m ajor it y of

ou r dr ug co ns pi raci es are hi st or ic al co ns pi raci es

. The y are co ns pi raci es w h e re we

lo ok ba ck in ti m e us ua ll y fro m so m e tri g g e rin g ev en t th at ha pp en s.” He co nt in ue d

th at “ [t]he se cas es are la rg el y ba se d on te st im on y

. . . . th e dr ug s aren ’t th ere an y m or e

. . . . [b ]ut w e a l w a ys h a ve th e te st im on y

. So th at ’s why th ey ’re so he av y on th e

te st im on y st uf

f.” Za r c o ’s a tt or ne y res po nd ed in he r op en in g st at em en t: “ The

go ve rn m en t us es th e te rm ‘his to ric al co ns pi racy’ whe n th ey ha ve a cas e th at ’s ba se d

on li tt le to no ph y si cal ev id en ce. Tha t’s wha t th ey cal l it

. The ir cas e is ba se d so le ly

on th e st at em en ts

. . . of ot he r in di vi du al s, in di vi du al s th at I wil l su bm it to y ou ha ve

bi as .” Sh e ad de d t ha t t he juro rs wou ld no t h ear a ny evi de nc e th at Zarco was fo un d

in po ss es si on of an y co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es or th at la w en fo rcem en t co nd uc te d an y

su rv ei ll an ce or or ch es tra te d an y co nt ro ll ed bu y s fro m hi m

. The Gov ern m en t th en

cal le d t welv e wit ne ss es

.

Dur in g cl os in g arg um en ts

, th e pr ose cu tor ag ai n refe ren ced th e hi st or ic al na tu re

of th e co ns pi racy, no ti ng th at by th e ti m e la w e n f o r c e men t be cam e in vo lv ed

, th e

co ns pi rat or s “ ha d pr et ty m uc h st op pe d de al in g wit h each ot he r a m on th or so earl ie r.”

Law en fo rcem en t “ ha d to try an d go ba ck in ti m e an d pu t th e cas e to ge th er, an d whe n

y ou do th at y ou go tt a lo ok at th e te st im on y of t he se wit ne ss es .” W it h reg ard to th e

el em en ts of a co ns pi racy, th e pr os ecu to r sa id th at th e “ jud ge ha s ad vi se d y ou of th os e

al read y an d th es e are pr et ty m uc h st rai gh t ou t of th e Co ur t’s in st ru c t i o ns .” Afte r a

-2

-di sc us si on of ho w th e te st im on ia l ev id en ce fit th os e el em en ts

, he co nc lu de d th at th e

jury wou ld “ fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da n t i s gu il ty of th is

of fen se .” At no po in t du rin g tri al di d Zarco ’s at to rn ey ob ject to th e pr os ecu to r’s us e

of th e p hr as e “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy.”

“ The fai lu re to ob

ject to an y

erro r, ev en a st ru ct ur al on e, le av es th e ap pe ll at e

co ur t wit h th e po wer to no ti ce on ly pl ai n erro r.” Rah n v. Haw ki ns , 46 4 F.3 d 81 3, 81 9
(8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s b y Av ic ha il ex re l. T.A. v. St

. Jo hn 's

Mer cy Hea lt h Sy s. , 68 6 F.3 d 54 8, 55 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); se e al so U n i t e d S t a t e s v.

J o h n s on , 52 0 U.S. 46 1, 46 6- 67 (1 99 7) (ap pl y in g pl ai n- erro r rev ie w to an al le g e d

st ru ct ur al erro r). Pl ai n- erro r rev ie w req ui r e s a n ap pe ll an t to de m on st rat e th at “ (1 )

th ere is an erro r; (2) th e erro r is cl ear and ob vi ou s, rath er tha n su bjec t to reas on ab le

di sp ut e; (3 ) th e erro r affe ct ed th e ap pe ll an t’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, whi ch in th e or di na ry

cas e m ean s it affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc eed in gs ; an d (4 ) th e erro r

se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .”

Uni te d St at es v. Mar cu s , 56 0 U.S. 25 8, 2 62 (2 01 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Bec au se th ere was no erro r, Zarco can no t es ta bl is h th e fir st pr on g, an d we

n e e d no t di sc us s th e ot he r th ree. W e al so ne ed no t de te rm in e whe th er th e al le ge d

erro r was st ru ct ur al

. Se e Ch ar bo ne au v. Uni te d St at es , 70 2 F.3 d 11 32

, 11 38 n.3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ) (co nc lu di ng th at ap pe ll an t’s em ph as is on an al le ge d st ru ct ur al erro r di d no t

affe ct it s pl ai n- erro r in qu iry be cau se “ [w]het he r an err o r can be pr op erl y

ch arac te riz ed as ‘st ru ct ur al ’ ha s n ot hi ng to do wit h p la in erro r rev ie w”).

Zarco cl ai m s th at th e pr os ecu to r im pr op erl y us ed “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy” as a

“ te rm of art ,” rat he r th an a “ m ere d e s c r i pt or .” He arg ue s th at “ [t]hi s is a pr ob le m

be cau se te rm s of art in th e la w m at te r—t he y al te r bu rd en s of pr oo f, p r e su m pt io ns , juro rs ’ du ti es an d ex pe ct at io ns .” He al so al le ge s th at th e pr os ecu to r “ crea te d a cri m e”
by ad ve rti si ng “ ‘his to ric al co ns pi racy’ to th e jury as a di ff e r e n t k i nd of co ns pi racy

th at co ul d no t be su pp or te d by t he no rm al m ark ers of pr oo f th at th e act ua l cri m e of

co ns pi racy has .”

-3

-Bu t Zarco do es no t ex pl ai n ho w th e pr os ecu to r’s us e of th e ph ras e “ hi st or ic al

co ns pi racy” crea te d a ne w cri m e or in vi te d th e jury to fin d hi m gu il ty un de r a rel ax ed

bu rd en or pr oo f. To th e co nt rary, bo th pa rti es ’ op en in g st at em en ts de m on st rat e th at

th ey un de rs to od “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy” to be a “ m ere de sc rip to r” of a co ns pi racy th at

en de d be fo re la w en fo rcem en t be ga n in ve st ig a t in g an d fo r whi ch li tt le ph y si cal

ev id en ce was av ai la bl e. The pr o s e c ut or sa id th at “ hi st or ic al co ns pi raci es ” are

“ co ns pi raci es whe re we lo ok ba ck in ti m e” and res ul t in “ cas es

. . . la rg el y ba se d on

te st im on y ” be cau se “ th e dr ug s aren ’t th ere an y m or e.” Zarco ’s at to rn ey rei te rat ed th is

de fin it io n, te ll in g th e jury th at “ [t]he go ve rn m en t us es th e te rm ‘his to ric al co ns pi racy’

whe n th ey ha ve a cas e th at ’s ba se d on li tt le to no ph y si cal ev id en ce.” Thu s, th ere was

no co nf us io n ab ou t wh at “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy” m ean t. The pr os ecu to r al so rel ie d

on th e st an da rd el em en ts of co ns pi racy fo un d in th e di st ric t co ur t’s un ch al le ng ed jury

in st ru ct io ns , un de rm in in g Zarco ’s arg um en t th at he crea te d a ne w cri m e. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Pen dl et on , 83 2 F.3 d 93 4, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“We p r e s u me th at juri es

fo ll ow a co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns .”). The pr os ecu to r’s st at em en t du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

th at th e ju r y s h o u l d “fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt is gu il ty o f

th is of fen se ” si m il arl y co nf

li ct s wit h Zarco ’s cl ai m th at th e pr os ecu to r in vi te d th e jury

to fin d h im

gu il ty by a lo wer b ur de n o f pr oo f.

W e al so no te th at fed eral co ur ts

, i nc lu di ng ou r own , ha ve us ed “ hi st or ic al

co ns pi racy” or it s an al og ue , “ dr y co ns pi racy,” as a d e s c r ip ti ve ph ras e wit ho ut an y

at te nd an t le ga l si gn ifi can ce. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Pres sl ey , 47 3 F. Su pp

. 2d

13 03

, 13 13 -1 4 (N.D. Ga. 20 06 ) (“ [A] dr y or hi st or ic al co ns pi racy is on e in whi ch th e

on ly ev id en ce of th e il le ga l dr ug act iv it y is th e te st im on y of ot he rs who r e c o u n t,

hi st or ic al ly, su ch act iv it ie s.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Becer ra , 43 5 F.3 d 93 1, 93 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (n ot in g th at a “ co ns pi racy to di str ibu te m et ha m phe tam in e th at is pr ov ed be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th ro ug h th e te st im on y of co

- c o n s p ira to rs wit ho ut ph y si cal

ev id en ce of co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e” is “ a so -cal le d ‘dry co ns pi racy’ ”); Uni te d St at es v.

El Her man , No. CR 0 4- 40 42 -MWB, 20 08 W L 83 57 25

, at *1 0 (N.D. Iowa Ma r. 25

, 20 08 ), af f’d

, 58 3 F.3 d 57 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (d es cri bi ng a co ns pi racy cas e wit ho ut an y

-4

-ph y si cal ev id en ce or ex hi bi ts as a “ pu re hi st o r i c al co ns pi racy”); Van Ng uy en v.

Uni te d St at es , 56 4 F. A p p’x 99 2, 99 3- 94 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d es cri bi ng

a na rco ti cs of

fen se as a “ ‘dry ’ co ns pi racy be cau se n o dr ug s were se iz ed

, an d th e

g o v e r n m en t pr ov ed th e ex is te nc e of th e na rco ti cs th ro ug h th e te st im on y of

. . . c o

co ns pi rat or s” ).

Fo r al l th es e reas on s, t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r by all owi ng th e p ro se cu to r

to us e th e ph ras e “ hi st or ic al co ns pi racy” du rin g tri al

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t d id

no t err, we ne ed no t co ns id er whe th er an y erro r wa s s t r u c t ur al

. W e affi rm Zarco ’s

co nv ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-