### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40704

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. JU AN CA RL O S VA RG AS D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , SM ITH , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P A T R I C KE
. H I G G I N B O T H A M: A t11: 15 p. m . on D ec em ber2, 2007 def endantJu an C ar l os V ar gas dr ove a t r ac t or t r ai l er i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es B or der Patr ol C hec kpoin t i n S a r i t a, T e x a s . V a r g a s o wn e d t h e t r a c t o r , wh i c h h e l e a s e d t o h i s e mp l o y e r , P &M Tr uc ki ng. Enr i que G ar z a o w ne d t he t r ai l e r . Bor de rpa t r o la ge nt s o pe ne d t he t r ai l erand f

ound 1, 426 po und s of m ar ij uana buri ed un derbal es of use d c l ot hi ng. V a rg a s w as c onvi c t ed o f pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e m or e t han 100 ki l o gr am s o f

m ar ij uana . H e a ppe al s , a s s e r t i ng pr o s e c ut o r i al m i s c o nduc tdur i ng th e g ov ern m en t’ s cl osin g a rg u m en t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40704

2 I The j ury hungi n t he f i r s tt r i ala ga i ns tVar ga s , b uta s e c o nd c o nvi c t e d. The c o nt e s t ed i s s ue i n b o t h t r i al s w as w he t he rVar ga s ha d k no w l e dg e o f t he
m a r iju a n a in th e tr a ile r . T h e p r o s e c u tio n p o r tr a y e d V a r g a s a s t h e s o le t raf f i cker, w i t h G ar z a m e r e ly l e ndi ng V argas h i s t rai l er, w h i l e V argas contend ed th a t G a r z a u s e d h im to u n w itt in g lyh a u l th e d r u g s . T h e prosecuti on used ci rcum st an t i alevi de nc e t o pr o ve V argas’kn ow l edg e. Itshow ed t h e j u ry tha tthe bil lof l ad i n g vol u n t eered by V argas to border pa t rol
a g e n ts a t t h e ch e c k p o in t w a s fa k e . T h e d o c u m e n t w a s a d u p lic a t e fr o m a tr ip
m ade b y G ar za’ s shi ppi ng c om pany, R oadr unn erC ar r i er s, i n 2006. Vargas had
access t o G arza’ s of

f i ce w h ere docum en t s, such a s bi l l s of l ad in g, w ere s t ored
w h en h e w ork ed at th e com p a n y in 20 0 6
. T h e d u p l i c a te h a d be en do ctored to show t h at t h e l oad ori gi n ated at “ T exas W i pes R a g s”— a m i sspel l i n g of one of G ar za’ s f

r equent c ust om er s “ Texas W i per s & R ags ”

— and w as go i ng t o Am er i c an T e x tile , I n c . in T y le r , T e x a s , aco m p a n yth a t d id n o t e x is t in th a t c ity

. T h e b ill al s o l ac ke d de t ai l s cus t o m ar y i n t he i ndus t r y, s uc h a s a t r ai l e rnum be r , f r e i ght
w e i ght , s pe c i f

i cat i o n o f

t he f r e i ghtc o m pa ny, a nd c o nt ac ti nf o r m at i o n o f

t he recipien t. G ar za t es t i f

i ed as a pr os ec ut i on w i t nes s t haton D ece m ber2, t he day V argas w as arres t ed at t h e checkp oi n t , V argas ask ed to borrow an em pty t rai l er. A tt he t i m e, G ar za w as on t he r oad. H e t es t i f i ed t hathe ag r ee d and t ol d V ar gas t o g o t o hi s y ar d a nd p i c k up a ny t r ai l e rhe w ant e d. P h on e rec ords i n di cat e t h at V argas al so s pok e w i t h G arza shortl y bef ore h e reach ed th e che ck p oin t t h a t sam e d a y. V a rg a s ca l l ed a p h on e reg i stere d to G arza’ s w i fe at 10: 24 p. m . , w h i ch G arza w as u si n g t h at n i gh t
. T h e tw o sp oke f or ove rf or t y m i nute s, endi ng t he c al lappr oxi m at el y f ive m i nute s bef

or e Vargas reached t h e checkp oi n t
. Pri or to cal l i n g G arza, V argas h ad cal l ed tw o nu m bers
r e g is te r e d in T y le r , T e x a s a n d re c e iv e d a ca ll b a c k fr o m o n e o f th e n u m b e r s .N o. 08- 40704

3 U pon r eac hi ng t he c hec kpoi nt , V ar ga s ex p l ai ned t o a gent s t hathe w as c o m i ng f

r o m Br o w ns vi l l e , Te xa s , w as i n r o ut e t o Tyl e r , Te xa s , a nd t hatt he t r ai l erw as l oade d and s eal ed. H e i m m edi at el y vo l unte er ed t he bil lof l adi n g. D ur i ng t he c he c k, a dr ug de t e c t i on d og al e r t e d t o t he m i ddl e po r t i o n o f t he t r ai l e r . Bor de rpa t r o lage nt s se ar c he d t he t r ai l e r , unc o ve r i ng o ve r1 , 40 0 po unds
o f m ar ij uana . Var ga s w as a r r e st ed and give n Mi r anda w arn i n gs. H e w ai ved Mi r andaan d, i n res pon se t o qu est i on i n g, st ated t h at he ha d been w orki n g f or P& M Tr uc ki ng f

o rs e ve n m o nt hs and t hathe had “j us tho o ke d up t he t r ai l e ra nd le ft.” H e a ls o s a id “I d id n ’ t k n o w th e r e w a s a n yd r u g s in s id e th e tr a ile r .” B e fo r e tr ia l, th e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e d th a t if V a r g a s d id n o t t e s tify a t t r ia l, h i s “ sel f servi n g” st atem en tsh ou l d n otreach the j u ry as he coul d n otbe cr osse xa m i ne d o n i t
. The def e ns e l awye ragr e e d, re s e r vi ng t he ri ghtt o i nt r o duc e t he st atem en t i f

i tb e c am e r e l e va ntt o c o m pl e t e a s t at e m e nti nt r o duc e d b y t he prosecuti on . Th e court gran t ed an i n l i m i n e m ot i on l i m i t i n g t h e i n t rodu ct i on of t h e st atem en t s. I n cl o s i ng, t he def

e ns e ar gue d t hatG ar z a w as t he c ul pr i tw ho dup e d t he
u n w i t t i n g V argas i n t o t ran sport i n g t h e m arij u a n a . T h e prosecuti on , af t er
r e vi e w i ng t he t r i ale vi de nc e , r e pl i e d:

A n d w h a t h e ch ose to t ellthe B ord er P a trol, be i n g ch a rg ed w i th possessi on of

m arij u an a, ov er a m i l l i on d ol l ars, a m i l l i on dol l ars th e r e a t t h e ch e c k p o in t, it g e ts m o r e v a lu a b le a s itg o e s n o r th , a ll h e ch o s e to s a yto th e m w h e n h e w a s a s k e d s o m e q u e s tio n s is s a y i n g , “ I wo r k f

o rP &M , I ’ v e b e e n t h e r e f o rs e v e n o re i ght m on th s, I picke d i t up an d I w a s j u st goin g to d rop i t of f. ” She c o nt i nue d:

It s e e m s lik e h e w a n ts y o u to b e lie v e ju s t t h a t, th a t h e d id p ic k it up a tP& M
. Bec aus e he di dn ’ t saya nyt hi ng di f fe r e nt l y t o t he B o r d e rP a t r o l a t t h a t t im e , d id n ’t s a yh e w e n tto E n r iq u e ’s [G a rza ], “I go t i t f

rom h i m . ” H e n ev er sa i d tha t.N o. 08- 40704

One matter should be put aside. Th e defen se only obliqu elyraises aseco nd argument 1 that th e prosecutor’s remarks inadmi s s ib lycommented on Varga s’ post-arrest silence in violationof Do

yle v. Oh io , 42 6 U .S. 61 0 (1 976). But Varga sw as not silent. He answere d seve r alque s tion s after the Mirandawarnings ha d be en give n, makingfair game bothhis answers and omission s: “A defe ndant cannot h ave it both ways. If he talks, what he say s or omits i s to be ju dge d onit s merits or demerit s.” U.S. v. F ambro , 52 6 F .3d 8 36, 842(5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Vi taliv. U. S. , 38 3 F .2d 1 21, 503(1st Cir. 196 7)). Th e question hereis distinct: wh ethe r the pr os ecution com mitte d mi sc o nduc t by mis char act erizi ng evidenc e to the jury, im plyin gsile ncewh enth e qu es tionwa s an swere d.

U. S

. v. Me n doza , 5 2 2F .3 d 4 8 2 , 4 9 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 2 Id

. 3 U.S. v. Holmes , 4 0 6F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 5 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5). 4 4 And: Eve r yt hi ng he di d o n t he ni ghto f hi s a r r e s ts ay s t o you t he d efen d a n t k n ew , b eca u se y ou n ev er h ea rd , “E n ri q u e G a rza didi t, l etm e t el ly o u abou thi m . ” W ou l dn ’ tt h at be r eason able? W ou l dn ’ tt h at be t h e reasonab l e t h i n g t o say at t h at t i m e? T h e defen se di d n otobj ectt o t h i s argu m en t
. T h e prosecutor f i n i shed , t h e court read the j u ry i t s i n stru ctio n s, an d w i t h i n an hou r i tret u rned w i t h a verdi ctof gui l t y. II T h e d e fe n s e u r g e s p r o s e c u t o r ia l m is c o n d u c t : t h a tth e p r o s e c u t o r ’s st ate m e n t s s o t ai n t ed V argas’t ri alas t o m ak e i tun fai r. V argas’fai rness 1
ar gum e nti m pl i c at e s due pr o c e s s . Fo ra de ni alo f c o ns t i t ut i o naldue pr o c e s s , t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s m i s c o nduc tm us ts o i nfe c tt he t r i ala s t o s ubs t anti al l y af fe c tt he fai r nes s of

t he pr oc ee di ng. 2 W e r e vi e w t he c l ai m o f m i scondu ctint w o s t e ps . Fi r s t , w e de t e r m i ne
w h e th e rth e p r o s e c u to r ’ s co n d u c t, h e r e th e clo s in ga r g u m e n t, w a s le g a lly i m proper. H aving fai l ed to obj ecta t t ri al , V argas bea rs t h e bu rden of

3 dem on st rat i n g t h at t h e prosecutor ’ s s t atem en t s c on st i t u t e pl ai n err or. 4N o. 08- 40704

Me n doza , 5 2 2F .3 d at 4 9 1 ; U.S. v. Jo nes , 8 3 9F .2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 8). 5 “First, there must b e an erroror defect—somesort of ‘deviation from ale gal 6 rul e’—th at has not bee n inte ntio nallyrelinquish ed or aban done d, i.e ., affirmativelywaived, byth e appell ant . S econ d, th e l egal errormust be clear orobvi ou s , r at he rthan subj ect to re a so n ab ledis pute
. Thir d, th e error mu sth ave aff ecte d th e app ellant' s s ub st anti al ri ghts , whichinth e ordin aryca se means he mu st demon str at e that it ‘affected the outcome of th e district court procee dings.’ Fourth and finally , if the abovethree prongs aresati sfied, the court of appeals has the discretion to remedyth e error-di scretio n whichou ght tobeexercise d only if the error ‘seriouslyaffec t sthe fairn ess, integrityor public reput atio n of j udicial procee dings.’” Pucke tt v. U.S. , 1 2 9S .C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 9(2 0 0 9) (intern al citation s o mitt ed). Jones , 83 9 F .2d at 1 050
. 7 Me n doza , 52 2 F .3d at 4 91. 8 5 Se c o nd, i f

w e f i nd e r r o ri n t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s s t atem e nt s , w e r e ve r s e a nd
r em and f

ornew t r i alonl y i f

t he r em ar ks “ prej udi c ed t he def endant ’ s subs t ant ive ri gh t s, ” t h at i s, w h ere t h e err or c asts d o u bt on t h e cor rect n ess of t h e j u ry ve rd i ct. T h i s step ov erlap s w i th th e th i rd pr on g o f p l a i n erro r rev i ew . In

5 6
m ak i n g t h i s d et erm i n ati on , w e con si der t h e m agn i t u de of the prej u di ci alef

fect of t h e sta tem en ts, th e eff i ca cyof a n y ca u ti on a ryi n stru cti on s, an d the stren gth of t h e ev i d en ce of the de fen d a n t’ s gu i l t. 7 III V a rg a s con tests th a t th e p rose cu ti on ’ s cl osin g a rg u m en t ask ed the j u ryto i n fer h i s gu i l ton the factt h at he di d n otof fer an excu l pa t ory expl an ati on w h en he w as ar r es t ed att he bo r derc hec kpoi nt
. Vargas had, i n fac t , deni ed know l edge of t h e drug s att h at t i m e i n a stat em en tt h e governm en tsuccess f u l l y kep tf

rom evi den ce. Ap r o s e c u to ris co n fin e d in clo s in ga r g u m e n t t o d is c u s s in gp r o p e r ly adm i t t ed e vi denc e a nd any r eas onabl e i n feren c es orc onc l usi ons t hatc an be draw n f rom t h at evi den ce. If t h e governm en t ’ s c l osi n g argu m en tqu est i on ed 8
w h yV a r g a s d id n o t d e n yk n o w le d g e o f th e d r u g s , it w o u ld h a v e b e e n p la in ly i m proper; a prosecutorm ay n otargu e t h e absen ce of evi den ce s h e w el lkn ewN o. 08- 40704

6 e x is te d

. T h e g o v e r n m e n t, h o w e v e r , su g g e s ts th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e m a d e in
r es ponse t o t he t heor y, f i r stof fer ed bythe def

ens e i n i t s c l os i ng ar gum ent , t hat V a rg a s h a d b ee n d u p ed b y G a rza . If G a rza w a s u singthe u n w i tti n g V a rg a s to h au ldrug s, as t h e defen se argued , w h y w ou l d V argas, w h en t h e drug s w ere uneart hed, nots ay “ E nri que G ar za di d i t , l etm e t el l you about hi m . ” Su c h an argu m en tt o coun t er t h e defen se’ s t h eory of t h e evi den ce i s w i t h i n bou n ds. B u tt h e rec ord an d the argu m en tare a b it d ifferent. Th e prosecutor l i nge r e d o n t he po i nt , m ak i ng s pe c i f i c s t at e m e nt s t hat c o ul d be r e ad as i m pl yi ng V argas m ad e no excu l pa t ory st atem en t s, w h en , i n fact , he h ad

. Th e prosecutor
s ta te d : “[A ]ll h e ch o s e to s a yto th e m w h e n h e w a s a s k e d s o m e q u e s tio n s is
s ay i ng, ‘ I w o r k f

o rP& M , I ’ ve b e e n t he r e f o rs e ve n o rei ghtm o nt hs , I pi c ke d i tup a n d I w a s j u st goin g to d rop i t of f. ’” B u t t h a t w a s n ot a llV ar ga s c ho s e t o s ay ; he to ld th e b o r d e ro ffic e r s “I d id n ’ t k n o w th e r e w a s a n y d r u g s in s id e th e tr a ile r .” In a case w h ere t h e si n gl e contes t ed i ssue w as V argas’kn ow l edg e, an d i n w h i ch t he pr o secut o rus e d am o t i o n i n l i m i ne t o ha ve Var ga s ’e xc ul pa t o r y s t at e m e nt excl u ded f

rom evi den ce, t h e hi gh groun d w ou l d h ave been t o st eer c l ea r of
ar gu m ent s t hati nferno s uch s t at em entw as m ade— es pec i al l y w hen t hat
a rg u m en t w a s m a d e on l y a ft er th e d efen se h a d h a d i ts l a st op p ortu n i ty to
ex ercise th e righ t t o introd u ce th e sta tem en t sh ou l d i t beco m e relev a n t. A t bes t, if n o t ill-a d v is e d e ffo r t, it w a s a h a z a r d o u s u n d e r ta k in g . Y et , our revi ew i s f

or pl ai n err or, the second pron g of w h i ch ask s w h et h er t he e r r o r w as c l e ar o r o bv i o us . Ther e ar e t w o po s s ibl e r e ad i ngs of t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s c l o s i ng. Al o ne , t he ar gum e nt s ugg e s t e d no e xc ul pa t o r y s t at e m e nt
w a s m a d e, w h en the go ve rn m en t kn ew i t ha d

. B u t i n con tex t of the arg u m en t, i tan sw ered t h e defense’ s t h eory of t h e case f

i rstrai sed i n i t s c l osi n g. I n l i gh tof t h ese t w o possibl e readi n gs, t h e rem arks do n otri se t o t h e l evelof obvi ou s er ror, evi den ce d i n part by the ab sence of an obj ect i on by defense coun selw h ose c o m p e te n c e is e v id e n t in th is re c o r d

.N o. 08- 40704

7 IV E v e n if, argue ndo , i t w as obvi ous t hatt he r em ar ks w er e i m pro per , V ar gas a l so fa i l s a t th e secon d step of ou r rev i ew of p rose cu toria l m i scon d u ct,
c o r r e s p o n d in gh e r e w ith t h e t h ir d p r o n go f p la in e r r o rr e v ie w : t h e r e m a r k s d id
no ta f fe c tt he a ppe l l ant ’ s s u b s t a n t i a lr i ght s , he r e t he f unda m e nt alfai r ne s s o f t he tr ia l. T h e s ta t e m e n ts w e r e lim ite d to a fe w m o m e n ts o f th e tr ia l, a lb e it in cl osi n g argu m en t , an d the j u ry h ad am pl e evi den ce on w h i ch to convic tV argas. D u r in gits c a s e -in -c h ie f th e p r o s e c u tio n n e v e r a llu d e d to w h a t V a r g a s d id
o rdi d notsa y f

o l l o w i ng hi s a r r e s t
. I to nl y c am e up i n r e s po ns e t o a t he o r y t he defe n se f

i rstproposed i n i t s ow n cl osi n g argu m en t
. Th ese f ew m om en t s of
ar gum e ntw e r e m ad e w hi l e t hatde fe ns e t he o r y w as s t i l lf r e s h i n t he j ur y’ s m i nd,
m aki ng i tl i kel y t he j ury hear d t he ar gum ent s i n t hatl i ght. It si gni f i es t hat d e n ia l o f k n o w le d g e a n d th e c h a r g e s w a s im p lic it in th e s ta te m e n ts V a r g a s d id
m a k e b o th w h e n d e ta in e d a n d a t t r ia l. T h e governm en tp re sented am pl e evi den ce att ri alt o sup port V argas’ convic t i on . Th e t ri ali n cl u ded m u l t i pl e w i t n esses , i n cl u di n g G arza, w h o t est i f i ed t h at he kn ew nothi n g of t h e drug s an d had of fered V argas an em pty t rai l er on l oan. V ar gas w as f

ound haul i ng ove r1, 400 po und s of m ar ij uana, had of

fer ed an
o bv i o us l y fak e b i l lo f l ad i ng de s pi t e hi s y e ar s o f t r uc ki ng e xp e r i e nc e , a nd m ad e pho ne c al l s t o t he o w ne ro f t he t r ai l e rj us t be f

o r e r e ac hi ng t he c he c k p o i nt
. Any
n e g a tiv e in fe r e n c e fr o m th e p r o s e c u tio n ’ s c lo s in g r e m a r k s , a n d w e th in k it s m a ll i n th e f u l l setti n g of th e t ri a l , w a s ou tw eigh ed bythe ev i d en ce of V a rg a s’gu i l t. P e r h a p s th e re m a r k s m a d e th e tr ia l im p e r fe c t, b u t itw a s fa ir

. AF F I RMED.