2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-24-2009 

# U SA v . D owe P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3188

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D owe " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1831. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1831NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 3188 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . ELRO Y D OW E,

A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt F or the D i stri ctof the V i rgi n Isl and s ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00005- 3) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es A r gued D ece m ber9, 2008 BE F OR E : F I S HE R, J OR DAN a n d S T AP L E T ON,

C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February24, 2009)

J or ge E. R i ver a- O r t i z ( A r gued) P. O . B ox 1845 M anat i , PR 00674 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant2

D avi d E . H ol l ar( A r gued) U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce A ppel l at e Sect i on 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 and C ynthi a St one U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce C r i m i nal D i vi s i on R oom 700 1 3 0 1 N e w Y o r k A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antE l r oyD ow e w as convi ct ed of pa r t i ci pat i ng i n cons pi r aci es t o i m por tand dis tri bu t e coca i ne. H e w as sent enced t o a p ri son term of 1 20 m on t hs, supervi sed rel ease o f f iv e y e a rs, a n d a $ 2 0 0 sp e c ial m o n e tar ya ss e ss m e n t. T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . W e w ill a f f i r m. I . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence D o w e m a k e s a n u m b e r o f a rg u m e n ts w h ich h e re g a rd s a s s u p p o rtiv e o f h is cont ent i on t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ury ’ s ver di ctthathe w as gui l tyof cons pi r i ng w i t h C r ai g H endr i cks and other s t o i m por tand di s t r i but e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s . Fi r s t , D ow e’ s over - ar chi ng ar gum enti s thatw hi l e the governm ents how ed3

H endr i cks t o be a s ubs t ant i al drug deal er , i tfai l ed t o pr ove thatD ow e w as anyt hi ng ot her than a “ carw as h boy ” forH endr i cks . W hi l e i ti s true thatD ow e enga ged i n m anual l abor atH endr i cks ’ hom e and mar i na, D ow e’ s i nt er cept ed t el ephone c onver s at i ons t ogether w i th the l aw enfor cements ur vei l l ance pr ovi ded ampl e evi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal j ur ycoul d concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatD ow e know i ngl yand w i l l ful l yagr eed t o par t i ci pat e i n s chemes t o i m por tand di s t r i but e coc ai ne forpr ofi t . A few exampl es su f f ice to m a k e th is p o in t. O n J anuary30, 2003, R i ver a, an under coveri nform ant , r ece i ved i ns t ruct i ons fr om D E A A gentT okar z t o s etup a fi ve t o t en ki l ogr am cocai ne tr ans act i on. I n or dert o do s o, h e c a l l e d Do we a n d t o l d h i m h e n e e d e d “ e i g h t . ” Ap p . a t2 6 6 - 6 8 . T h e n e x td a y , Do we and R i ver a s poke aga i n, w i t h D ow e conf i r m i ng, “Y ou s ayy ou w antthatei ghtr i ght ?” Ap p . a t2 6 9 - 7 0 . On F e b ru a r y7 , 2 0 0 3 , Ag e n tT o k a r z g a v e Ri v e r a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 f o ra d o wn p a ym e n t o n th e c o c a in e . R iv e ra th e n m e t w ith D o w e a n d H e n d ric k s in f ro n t o f th e T u tu Par k M al l K m artfort en mi nut es and then w entt o H endr i cks ’ hom e. W hen R i ver a next m etw i th A gentT okar z, he no l ongerhad the money . O n February17, 2003, R i ver a and D ow e aga i n s poke on the phone. D ow e i nform ed R i ver a thatthe “man m i ghtbe gett i ng s om ethi ng l at er , ” and “ t hey ’ r e goi ng out ” s o R i ver a s houl d be pr epar ed t o “go t o t he bank” a nd t hen “c om e overher e. ” A pp. at272- 77. D ow e w as m or e than mer el ypr es ent atthi s drug t r ans act i on; hi s phone ca l l s es t abl i s h t hathe w as w el l aw ar e of w hatw as g o i n g o n a n d w a s a c t i v e l y a s s i s t i n g H e n d r i c k s ’ d ru g c o n s p i r a c y.4

O n M ar ch 1, 2003, D ow e pr epar ed H endr i cks ’ boatfora tr i p t o T or t ol a w hi ch the evi dence i ndi cat ed w as a s our ce of H endr i cks ’ drugs . Phone cal l s thatdays how ed that D o w e w a s w a tch in g H e n d ric k s f ro m sh o re , p re su m a b lyto p ro tec t an d a ss ist h im if neede d. W hen H endr i cks s t opped and i dl ed the boatbefor e comi ng as hor e, D ow e ca l l ed both H endr i cks and an a s s oci at e of hi s t o m ake s ur e thi ngs w er e s afe and thatthe run had n o t b e e n p u t “ o n s ta n d b y .” O n s t i l l ot herocca s i ons , t el ephone t apes found D ow e s eeki ng i nform at i on im p o rta n t to H e n d ric k s’ o p e ra tio n a n d p a ss in g o n in f o rm a tio n to H e n d ric k s a n d h is a s s o c i a t e s r e g a r d i n g l a w e n f o r c e m e n ta c t i v i t y. D ow e nextar gues t hatt he j urycoul d nothave be l i eved hi m gui l t yof cons pi r acy bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbeca us e i tans w er ed “none ” i n r es pons e t o a s uppl ement al v e rd ict s h e e t in q u irin g a s to th e a m o u n t o f c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s D o w e “ k n e w in f a c t, and/ or. . . r eas onabl yfor es aw ” bei ng i nvol ved i n t he tw o cons pi r aci es . T hes e fi ndi ngs came t o be made beca us e of a n unus ual , bi fur cat ed tr i al appr oach a dopt ed bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt. T h e ya re n o t, ho w e v e r, in c o n sis ten t w ith D o w e ’s c o n v ictio n o n C o u n ts I a n d X I in the i ndi ctm ent , and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appr oach di d noti n anyw aypr ej udi ce D ow e. Fol l ow i ng al l of the evi dence , the D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned t o t he j uryal l of the el ement s t hatt he governm entw oul d have t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt o w arr ant co n v ict ion s o n the c o n sp ir ac ych arg es. Itsev ere d fo r sub seq u en t con side rati o n , h o w ev er, the i s s ue of w hethert he cons pi r aci es i nvol ved fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne and5

in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itn e e d o n lyf in d th a t th e c o n sp ira c ies in v o lv e d a “ d e tec tab le a m o u n t ” o f

c o c a i n e i n o r d e rt o f

i n d D o w e g u i l t y. A ft ert he j ur yfound D ow e “gui l t y ” on C ount s I and X I , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not d i s c h a r g e t h e j u r y . I n s t e a d , i tt o l d t h e j u r o r s th a tth e ywo u l d n o w b e a s k e d t o r e s u me del i ber at i ons and fi l l outa s uppl ement al ver di cts heeti nqui r i ng as t o t he amountof c o c a in e e a c h o f

th e f o u r d e f e n d a n ts c o n v ic te d o f

C o u n ts I a n d X I “ k n e w in f a c t, a n d /o r . . . rea so n a b lyf

o re sa w ” b e in g in v o lv e d in th e c o n sp ira c ies . T h e ju ryw a s in stru c ted th a t it m u s t a p p ly a b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t s ta n d a rd a n d u n a n im o u s ly ag re e o n its a n s w e rs . W i th r es pectt o defe ndant s H endr i cks and Fl emi ng, i n t he cont extof both C ount s I and X I , the j urychec ked “Y es ” nextt o t he l i ne “Fi ve ( 5) ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne. ” W i th r es pectt o D ow e, i n t he cont extof both of thos e count s , the j urychec ked “N o” for a ll p o s s ib le re s p o n s e s , in c lu d in g th e re s p o n s e f o r “ L e s s th a n 5 0 0 g ra m s o f c o c a in e .” W hen a drug cons pi r acyi s al l eged, the quant i t yi nvol ved i s offe ns e- s peci fi c, r ather th a n d e f e n d a n t-sp e c if

ic. T h a t is, the ju rym u st d e ter m in e “ th e d ru g typ e a n d q u a n tity e lem e n t as to th e c o n sp ira c ya s a w h o le, a n d n o t th e d ru g typ e a n d q u a n titya ttribu tab le to eac h co- cons pi r at or . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P hi l l i

ps , 3 4 9 F .3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), vacated a n d r e ma n d e d

o n B o o ke rg r o u n d

s s u b n o m. B ar bourv. U ni t ed Stat es , 543 U . S. 1102 (2 0 0 5 ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 413 F. 3d 1185, 1192 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) . I ti s onl yatt he s ent enci ng phas e thata fi ndi ng needs t o be made aboutthe r es pons i bi l i t yof i ndi vi dual cons pi r at or s . T hatfi ndi ng i s or di nar i l ym ade bythe j udge6

b a s e d u p o n a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . See Phi l l i ps , 349 F. 3d at143. G i ven thatt he combi ned t ot al amount of contr ol l ed s ubs t ance found on the s uppl ement al ver di cts heetforal l defe ndant s found gui l t yon C ount s I and X I exce eds f iv e k ilo g ra m s in e a c h in sta n c e , itis c lea r th a t th e ju ryf o u n d e a c h o f

th o se d e f

e n d a n ts gui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubtof part i ci pat i ng i n cons pi r aci es i nvol vi ng m or e than fi ve k ilo g ra m s. M o re o v e r, th e re is n o th in g in th a t d o c u m e n t w h ich is in c o n sis ten t w ith D o w e’s c o n v ict ion s as c h arg ed in tho se c o u n ts. T o the e x tent, if an y , that D o w e’s s ent ence w as i nfl uence d byt hi s fi ndi ng, i tcannothave be en t o hi s pr ej udi ce. C ont r aryt o D ow e’ s s ugges t i on, w e do notvi ew the j ury ’ s “N o” fi ndi ng as i n any w ayi ncons i s t entw i t h i t s fi ndi ng of gui l t . G i ven the evi dence , i ti s qui t e l i kel ythatthe j ur ybel i eved D ow e had a gr eed t o hel p t he cons pi r aci es butw as i n no pos i t i on t o know or have r eas on t o know t he amountof contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s i nvol ved. D ow e furt herar gues t hatt he fa ctthatthe D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed hi m a j udgm entof a c q u itt a l o n C o u n ts V a n d V I (a id in g a n d a b e tti n g th e p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te an d the d istri b u ti o n o f 5 0 0 g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine o n O ctob er 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 ) an d the ju ry ac q u itted h im o n C o u n t V II ( aidin g an d ab ett ing the im p o rt ati o n o f 5 k il o g ram s o r m o re of coc ai ne on M ar ch 1, 2003) i s evi dence thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr ove the e lem e n ts o f

th e c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e s. A lth o u g h n o t ex p licitlysta ted , D o w e ’s a rg u m e n t is i n es s ence an ar gum entt hatt he ac qui t t al s and convi ct i ons i n t hi s cas e pr es enti ncons i s t ent v e rd ic ts .7

Fi r s t , i ti s notcl eart hatan i ncons i s t encyexi s t s . E ven w i t houtthe evi dence that D o w e p arti cipa ted in a d istri b u ti o n o n O ctob er 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , as a ll eg ed in C o u n t V an d V I, th e re w a s s u f

f icie n t ev id e n c e f

ro m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t h e p a rticip a ted in the cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne al l eged i n C ountI . W hi l e a mor e compel l i ng ar gum entcan be m ade thatD ow e’ s acqui t t al on C ountV I I and hi s convi ct i on on C ount X I m a yb e in c o n sis ten t, th a t w o u ld n o t in v a lid a te th e latte r. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t co n sis ten c yin th e v e rd icts is n o t n e c e ss a ry , an d th a t ea c h c o u n t in a n in d ictm e n t is to b e re g a rd e d s e p a ra te ly. U n itedS ta tes v . P o w e ll , 4 6 9 U .S . 5 7 , 6 2 (1 9 8 4 ). “[ W ]h e re tru ly i ncons i s t entver di ct s have be en r eac hed, ‘ [t ] he mostthatcan be s ai d . . . i s thatthe ver di ct s how s t hatei t heri n t he ac qui t t al ort he convi ct i on the j urydi d nots peak thei rr eal co n clus ion s, b u t th at do es n o t sho w that theyw ere n o t con v ince d o f th e d ef en d an t’ s gui l t . ’ ” Id . at64- 65 ( quot i ng D u n n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 284 U . S. 390, 393 ( 1932) ) . H er e, there i s suffi ci ent evi den ce t o sup po rtD ow e’s con vict i on s.

I I . A dm i s s i on of I nt er cept ed C al l s B etw een D ow e and Rafae l C i ntr on R afa el C i nt r on w as a pol i ce of fi cerw i t h t he V i r gi n I s l ands Pol i ce D epart m entand w as tr i ed as a co- defe ndant . T el ephone c onver s at i ons w er e admi t t ed betw een Ci ntr on and D ow e abouta drug r el at ed i nci dentatB ennerB ay . T her e w as no obj ect i on t o t he ad m issi o n o f th ese co n v ersa ti o n s, an d w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. B efor e us , D ow e cont ends t hatthe pr obat i ve val ue, i f any , of thos e conve r s at i ons w as out w ei ghed byt hei rundue pr ej udi ci al eff ectand thattheyw er e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ayD ow e al s o compl ai ns befor e us of the admi s s i on, w i t houtobj ect i on, of a c onver s at i on 1 b etw ee n C intr o n an d T h o m as V il lanu ev a, an o ther p o li ce o ff icer, reg ard ing C intr o n ’s part i ci pat i on i n t he B ennerB ayi nci dent . I t s admi s s i on w as notpl ai n err or . D ow e w as n o t m e n tio n e d in th is c o n v e rsa tio n a n d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p re ju d ice d b yit. 8 gi ven thatC i nt r on w as ul t i m at el yfound nott o be a c o- cons pi r at or . W e ca nnotagr ee. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthes e conve r s at i ons coul d be under s t ood as evi denci ng an ef

fortbyD ow e t o pum p C i ntr on fori nform at i on aboutthe B ennerB ay incid en t th at w o u ld b e o f in terest t o the c o n sp ir ac ies an d , ac co rdin g ly , that theyw ere h ig h lyre lev a n t to w h e th e r D o w e w a s a p a rticip a n t in th e c o n sp ira c ies a n d n o t u n d u ly pr ej udi ci al . W e agr ee. G i ven the purpos e forw hi ch theyw er e admi t t ed, the conve r s at i ons w er e not hear s ay . T heyw er e ca pabl e of be i ng under s t ood as act i ons t aken byD ow e i n fur t her ance of the cons pi r aci es w hetherornotC i ntr on w as a co- cons pi r at or . M or eover , i f r egar ded as hear s ay , D ow e’ s w or ds t o C i nt r on w er e admi s s i bl e as s t at ement s of a pa r t yopponent u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )(2 ), an d C in tro n ’s w o rd s to D o w e w e re a d m iss ib le f o r t h e n o n -h e a rs a yp u rp o s e o f p u ttin g D o w e ’s s ta te m e n ts in c o n te x t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Hendr i cks , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 8 3 n . 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 1

I I I . T h e A d m i s s i o n o f

D E A A g e n tT o k a r z ’ s T e s t i m o n y R e g a rd in g H is In stru c tio n s to th e C o n f id e n tial I nform antR i ver a, W ho I s N ow D ece as ed C ont r aryt o D ow e’ s s ugges t i on, t es t i m onyof a de cl ar antconce r ni ng i ns t ruct i ons g iven to an o ther a re n o t hea rsayif o ff ere d , as h ere , to p rov e tha t suc h instruction s w ere9

g iv e n . U n itedS ta tes v . R e ill

y , 33 F. 3d 1396, 1410 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . A ccor di ngl y , the t e s t i mo n yo f

Ag e n tT o k a r z r e g a r d i n g h i s i n s t ru c t i o n s t o Ri v e r a wa s n o th e a r s a y . Do we also arg u es th at A g en t T o k arz w as im p rop erlyp erm itted to test ifythat w h at th e juryh ea rd f ro m R iv e ra o n tap e d c o n v e rsa tio n s b e tw e e n D o w e a n d R iv e ra w a s c o n sis ten t w ith T o k arz ’s i n stru cti o n s. W e p erc eive n o erro r. T h e ju ryw a s p e rm itt e d to h e a r R iv e ra ’s s id e o f h is c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith D o w e so lely f o r th e p u rp o se o f

a llo w in g th e ju ryto u n d e rsta n d th e c o n tex t in w h ich D o w e ’s s tate m e n ts w er e made. D ow e’ s r emar ks w er e, of cour s e, admi s s i bl e bec aus e theyw er e capabl e of b e in g u n d e rs to o d a s a d m is s io n s o f a p a rt yo p p o n e n t. Hendr i cks , 395 F. 3d at184. T o k a rz w a s p e rm itt e d to tes tifya b o u t R iv e ra ’s c o o p e ra tio n a n d h is in stru c tio n s to R i ver a t o att empt t o buydrugs fr om D ow e and hi s co- cons pi r at or s beca us e, i f cr edi t ed by the fa ctfi nder , t hi s i nform at i on w oul d m ake i tm or e l i kel ythan i tot herw i s e w oul d be that d ru g tr a n s a c tio n c o n v e rs a tio n s o c c u rr e d b e tw e e n R iv e ra a n d D o w e s h o rt ly th e re a f te r. T h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s t h u s c l e a r l y r e l e v a n ta n d , a s w e h a v e n o t e d , n o th e a r s a y. T he s ame can be s ai d aboutT okar z’ s t es t i m onythatR i ver a’ s s i de of the conver s at i ons w as cons i s t entw i t h t he i ns t ruct i ons T okar z had gi ven hi m . T hatt es t i m ony m akes i tm or e l i kel yt han i tot herw i s e w oul d be thatD ow e’ s and R i ver a’ s conver s at i ons on t he t apes w er e the drug t r ans act i ons thatthe i ns t ruct i ons cont empl at ed. T hi s t es t i m ony w as thus r el evantand al s o nothear s ay . T okar z w as avai l abl e forcr os s - exami nat i on about h is i n stru cti o n s to R ivera an d ab o u t w h ethe r R ivera ’s w o rds re co rde d o n the tap es w ere10

cons i s t entw i t h t hos e i ns t ruct i ons . B eca us e Tokar z’ s t es t i m onyw as l i m i t ed t o w hether Ri v e r a ’ s s t a t e me n t s we r e c o n s i s t e n twi t h th e i n s t ru c t i o n s g i v e n , h e wa s n o t , a s Do we ar gues , t es t i fy i ng as t o R i ver a’ s s t at e of mi nd. I V . C oncl us i on W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.