## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3879 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L OR E NZ O T AVAREZ, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 08 CR 102

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 15, 2010

Befo re B AUER, S YKES, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI LT ON, C ircu it Judge. Base d on i nfo rm ati on pro vi ded bya confi dential info rm ant, appel l ant Lor enzo Tavar ez w as ar re ste d and charge d w i th two co unts o f d istribu ting m eth am p he tam ine. D esp ite the inform an t’s unexp l ai ned abse nce at t ri al, a j ury convi cted Tava re z on all ch arges. Tava rez now argue s tha t t h e d istri ct cou rt erred byr efus i ngt o g i ve the j ur y a r eque st ed “mi ss i ng w itness ” instru ction an d that, w ithou t the i nform an t’s

### 2 N o. 09

- 3879 te st im on y, th e e vid en c e w as ins u ff i c ien t t o s u st ain h is c o n v i c t i o n . We a ffi r m. Backgroun d I n ear l y 2 008, a confi denti ali nfo rm an t advi sed l aw enf or cem ent that Tava re z was se l l i ng m etham phetam i ne. T o h e l p c o r r o b o r a t e th i s i n f o r ma t i o n a nd b u i l d a c r i mi nalcas e a gainst Tava re z, the info rm ant was as ked to m ak e two c o nt r o ll ed dr ugb uy s atTa va r ez ’ s apa r tment whi l e unde rpo l i ce s ur ve i l l an ce . Pr i o rt o e ac h c o ntroll ed bu y, a law en forcem en t officer searc he d th e i nform an t an d he rc art o make s ur e sh e w as no t hi di ng an y g uns , mo ne y, or drug s o fhe ro wn. Ea cht i m e, the i nfo r m an t en te r ed Ta va r ez ’ s apa r tmentb ui l di ng, s pen t a s hor t t i m e insi de, then re turned with a quanti ty of m etha m phe ta m i ne . No mone y c ha ng ed ha nds du r i ng the fi rs t buy ; the i nfo rm ant was in st ructed to pay f or th e d ru gs d u rin g th e sec on d b u y an d a foll o w - u p vis it usi ng $6 , 000 i n cash provi ded byl aw enf or cem ent. Ta va r ez was c ha r g ed wi tht wo c ou nts o fdi st r ibut i ng 50 gr am s o r m or e o fm etham phetam i ne i n vi ol ati on o f 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(a )(1) an d (b)(1 )(A )(v iii). B efo re h e c ou ld be tr i ed, the c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t di sa ppea r ed wi th o ut a tr ac e. Att empts b y b o th th e pr o se cut i o n a nd the defe nse t o l oca te her w er e unsucc es sful
. Thi s was pro blem ati c, o fco urse ; o nl y the i nfo rm ant had se en exac tly whatha d o cc ur r ed dur i ngthe c o ntroll ed buy s, l ea ving the g ove rnm ent with onl y c i rcum sta nti alev i dence aga i ns t Ta v a r e z . Th i s c i r c ums t a nt i a l e v i de nc e pr o v e d t oN o. 09

- 3879 3 be e nough, however, f or a ju ry to co nvi ct Tav ar ez on both counts ofthe i nd i ctm ent. Tavar ez now appeal s.
M i s s i ng Wi t ne s s Ins t r uc t i on Ta va rez fi rs t a rgues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by r efus i ngt o g i ve the j ur y w ha t i s k no wn as a “ m i ss i ng w itness ” instru ction. Tav arez req u ested that the cou rt gi ve th is i nstr ucti on t el l i ng the j ury that i t co uld infe r fro m th e in for m an t’s ab se n c e t h at th e in f o rm an t w ou ld ha ve pr o vi ded i nf o r m at i o n un f av o r ab le t o the g o ve r nm en t’s ca se . Th e d ist r i c t co u rtd ec lin ed to p ro vid e t h is in st ru c tio n, rea so n in g t h atth e in for m an t w as eq u ally unavai lable to bo th the pro secuti on a nd the defe nse. General l y, o ur r evi ew o fa deci si on w hetheror not to gi ve a par ti cul arj ury i nstr ucti on i s fo r an abuse o fdi scr et i o n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ac e do , 40 6 F
. 3d 77 8, 78 7 ( 7th Cir. 20 05 )
. The di st r i ctc o ur t decl ined to g i ve the mis sing w i tness i nstr ucti on be cause i t co ncl ud ed thatsuch a n i n s t r u c t i o n wa s i na ppr o p r i a t e a s a ma t t e ro fl a w, h o wev er , so ou r re vie w is d e n ov o. Id. T h e m iss in g w itn es s in st ru c tio n is d isfa vo re d in t h is c irc u it, b u t a d ist ric t c ou rth as d isc re tio n to giv e itin unu sualci rcum sta nces. S ee U nite d States v. D iSa ntis , 5 6 5 F
. 3 d 3 5 4 , 3 6 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , c i t i ng U nite d S t at e s v. Br ock, 4 17F
. 3d 69 2, 6 99 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. Be f o r e th e accus ed i n a c r i m i na lc as e woul d b e en ti tl ed to the i nst r uct i o n, he would ne ed t o s ho w ( 1) tha t i fc al l ed, the wi tn es s woul d ha ve b ee n abl e to pr o vi de r el ev an t, no ncumul at i ve t es ti m o ny o n a n i ss ue i n the cas e; a nd (2) th at th e w it n ess w as p ecu li arly in th e othe r party ’s

### 4 N o. 09

- 3879

W e hav e often described the fir stel em ent as requir ing that 1 th e w itn es s h a v e b ee n ab le to “e lu ci d a te ” a n i s s u e a t tr ia l. E.g. , U n i te d S tat es v. C hri st, 51 3 F
. 3d 7 62 , 77 3 ( 7th C i r. 20 08 )
. The verb has s tuck du ri ng the m ore than one hun dred years s ince the S u p re m e Court fir stused i t i n thi s contex t. See G ra ves v. Uni t e d S t ates , 150 U
. S. 118, 121 ( 1893) ( revers ing cr im inal c o n v i c t i o n w h e r e g o v e r n m e n th a d c o m m e n t e d o n d e fe n d a n t ’s s up po s e d f ail ure to br i ngh i s wi fe t o c ou r ts o s he c ou l d b e id en tifi ed b y g o v er n m en t w itn es se s). p ow er to p ro d u c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ahon e, 5 37 F. 2d 922, 926-27 (7th Cir. 1976). 1 The fi r ste l em en t was s at i sfi ed he r e. Onl y the c o nfi den

ti ali nf o r m an t ac tu al l y o bs er ve d whatha ppen ed dur i ng the c ontr ol l ed buys. H erte sti m ony re gar ding thos e observat ions certain ly w ou ld h ave b e en rel evan t. C f. M ahon e, 53 7 F
. 2d at 927 ( noting tha t a m i ssing w i tness in st ru c tio n is in ap p ro p ria te i ft h e w itn es s’s te st im on y is either cu m ulative or i rrelevant ). The seco nd el em ent, however, sim p l y c annot be m et w hen a confi denti alin for m ant di sappears and cannot be loc at ed by eith er p ar ty . A w itn es s is p ec u liar ly w ith in a p ar ty ’s p ow er to p ro d u c e i fs h e e ith er (1) is p h ys ica lly av ai labl e to o nl y tha t par ty ; o r( 2) ha s su cha r el at i o nsh ip w ith one par ty as to effecti vel y m ake her unavai l abl e t o the o pp osing par ty, r ega rd l ess o factual p h ys ica l av aila b ility
. Id. at 926. H er e the i nfo rm an t w as phy si ca l l y una va i l ab l e to b o ththe gover nm en t an d Tavar ez

—both p a r t ies tri ed and f ail ed to l ocat e her. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. E a sley, 977 F.2d 283 , 2 8 6 ( 7th Cir.N o. 09

- 3879 5 1992 ) ( “The r ule i s that a de fen d an t i s no t e nti tl ed to a ‘ m i ss ing wi tn es s’ i ns truct i o n whe r e a g o ve r nm en t w itness i s equ all y un a v a il able to the op p osing p arties. ”); U nited Sta tes v. P iz a rro , 717 F. 2d 336, 34 6 (7th Cir
. 19 83) ( noting tha t m i ssing witne ss i nstr ucti on i s inap p ro p ri ate ifthe w itness w as p hy sic a ll y un available to both p arti es )
. And a wi tn es s’ s s ta tu s as a c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t d oe s n otn ec es sa rily g ive r ise to a su fficie n t re lat ion sh ip w i th the go ver nm ent s o as to re nd er herunavai l abl e t o the defense. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , 86 2 F
. 2d 1282 , 1298 ( 7th Ci r. 1 98 8) , ci ti ng U nite d States v. B ram ble, 68 0 F. 2d 590 ( 9th Ci r. 19 82) , am ong othe r case s; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Addo , 98 9 F
. 2d 238, 24 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( rej e c t i ng a s s e r t i o n tha t “ a wi tne s s who i s un a v a i l ab l e to e i t h e r p ar ty is d ee m ed in t h e c on tr ol of on e p ar ty
. . . si m plybec ause the witn es s h as a bi as towards that par ty ”)
. Tha t i s true e ve n whe n, a s w as th e ca se he r e, the gov er nm ent ne verpro vi ded the i nfo rm ant’ s co ntact i nfo rm ati on t o the defense. S ee P iz a rro , 71 7 F
. 2d at 343, 346 ( up hol ding denia l of m i ssing w i tness inst ructi on wher e i nf o r m ant’ s ab se nc e was no t ca us ed byg o ve r nm ent m i sco nd uct, ev en tho ugh go ver nm ent ha d r efused to d isclose that w itness ’s conta ct inform ation). Ta va r ez f ai l ed to s ho w tha t the c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t w as ava il able only to the gove rnm en t. T he district cou rt ther ef or e di d not e rrby r efusi ng the m i ssing witne ss i ns truct i o n.

### 6 N o. 09

- 3879 Suffi cie ncy of the Evidence Tavar ez ar gues that the e vi dence pres ented attr i al was i ns uffi ci en t t o al l o w a j ur y t o c o nv i cthi m b ey o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubt
. Thi s ar g um en t i s al so b as ed o n the con fidenti ali nfo rm ant’ s absence attr i al
. N one of the witnesse s a ctual l y s aw Tavar ez p h ysic al l y del i ver m etham phetam i ne to the confi denti ali nform ant. They only saw the inform an t ent er t he ap artm en t and return so m e t im e la te r w ith m et h am p h et am in e. Fu rt h er co m p lica tingmatt er s, Ta va r ez po i nt s o ut, i s th e f ac t th athe w as not the o nl y per son w ho l i ved i n the apartm ent. He s ha r e d i twi th hi s g i r l fr i e nd
. T avarez pres erve d this argum en t by m oving for a j ud gm en t of acq uittal at the close ofthe p rosecu tion ’s c a se , so ou r re vie w is d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D al hou se, 53 4 F .3d 80 3, 80 7 (7 th C i r . 200 8); Uni t e d S t at e s v . M e ad ows , 91 F.3d 85 1, 85 4 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). A n ap p ella n t w h o c h all enges the suffi ci ency of the evi dence und er l yi n g h is c on vic tio n m u st sh ow th atn o re as on ab le jur y c ou ld have f ound his gui l t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt. Jackson v. Virgini a , 4 43 U
. S
. 3 07, 3 24 ( 19 79 )
. Al lr ea so nab l e i nfer en ce s fr o m the e vi den ce a r e to b e dr awn in the go ve rn m e n t ’ s fa vo r. U nited Sta tes v. G a rdn er, 23 8 F
. 3d 87 8, 8 79 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. W e wi l lne i th err ewe i g h the ev i den ce no rs ec o nd- g ue ss the j ur y ’ s cr edibi l i tyde term in at ion s. Id. I t i s i rr el evantwh ethe r w e o urse l ves w oul d have vot ed to co nvi ct o n the evi dence presente d

— w e hav e no au th ority to us u r p the j ury’s fu n c t i o n a s fi n d e ro ff a c t, p a r t i c u l a r l y w he r e we ba se o urr ev i ew o n the pr o ve rbi al ly cold r ec o r d. TheN o. 09

- 3879 7

W e have oft ens ai d thata defen dant argui ng i ns uffi c i en c y of 2 th e e v id en ce fac es a “ n ea rl y in su rm o u n ta b le ” b u rd en . E.g. , U n ite d S tat es v. Warren , 5 9 3 F
. 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. The p hr as e s houl d notbe unde rs t ood a s i m pl yi ng thatanap p ell at e c our twil l unthi nki ngl y a ffirm a c onvi c t i on on eve n the w ea k es t of ev id en ce . T h e sta n d a rd o f re v ie w m a k e s i t d i ffi c ul tf or a c onvi c t ed de fend an t to pr eva i l onthi s gr ound. But thatdiffic ulty onl y em phasizes how i m portant i t i s f or a revie w ing cou rtto revie w the ent ir e t ri al rec ord to ens ure tha t the rec or d tak en as a w ho le cou ld justify a find i n g o f g u ilt b ey on d a rea son ab le d ou b t. appell ant’ s bur den i s a h ea vy one, but not an i m possibl e o ne. 2 W e co ncl ud e that th e j u ryco uld r eas onably r each i ts gui l ty ver dicto n the ci rcu m st anti alev i dence pres ented here
. The i nfo rm ant was se en go i ng i nto T avar ez’ s a partm ent b uil ding f orea ch co ntrolled bu y. A sur vei l l ance vi deo i nt r o duce d a t tr i als how ed th e i nf o r m an t en te r i ng the b u ildingwith Tava re z be f or e the se cond contr ol l ed b u y. A lth ou gh it is u n d isp u t ed th at T av ar ez sh ar ed h is a pa r t men twi th h i s g i r l fr i e nd , n o thingi n the t r a ns c r i pt i ndi ca te s whethe rhi s g i r l fr i en d was o rwas no t p re se nt i n the apart m ent duri ng ei thero fthe co ntro l l ed buys. W hen l aw enf or cem ent s ear ch ed Tavar ez’ s a partm ent, the y di s c o v e r e d mo s to fthe b uymo ne y ( $ 4 , 2 0 0 ) i ns i de som e m en’ s s uitj acke ts h an ging i n the m ast erbedr oo m cl o se t. M o sti m po r ta nt, Ta va r ez ’ s fing er pr i ntwas f o und o n o ne o fthe b ag s o fdr ug s th e con fi den ti ali nf o r m an t provi ded to l aw en for cem ent. Fr om thi s e vi dence, i t was r ea so nabl e t o find b ey o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubttha t th e

### 8 N o. 09

- 3879 in f or m ant purchas ed m etham phetam i ne fro m Tavar ez as i ns truct ed, tha t Tavarez ha d l eft hi s fi ng er pr i nto n the bag ofdrugs du ring th e co urse o fthatsa l e, and that Ta va r e z h a d h i d d e n th e b u y mo n e y i n h i s o wnc l o th i ng f orsa feke epi ng. T h e c a s e a g a i n s tT a v a r e z w a s n o to v e r wh e l mi n g . We ca n i m ag i ne i nno ce nte xpl an at i o ns f o rthe fi ng er pr i nt and the buy m oney i n the m en’ s cl othing. B u t t h e abi l i ty to i m ag i ne a n innocent e xpl an at i o n i s no t equi va l en t to h arb or in g re as on ab le d ou b t. T h is c irc u m st an tia l ev idence w as not so w eakas to pre cl ud e a gui l ty ver dict
. A FFI RMED .

11- 15- 10