Opinion ID: 203288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Agent Toro's Testimony (i) Overview Testimony

Text: Feliciano claims that, as a result of improper overview testimony given by Agent Toro at the outset of the Government's case, the jury heard that Appellant was not merely a part of the conspiracy but its leader and was invited to speculate about his role in the murder of the previous leader, and various shootings, including at Oscar Espada and Agent Toro. Because Feliciano raised no objection to the testimony at trial, we review only for plain error. This court on several occasions has strongly cautioned the Government against the practice of having a case agent make conclusory statements about a defendant's culpability at the beginning of the prosecution's case, before any supporting evidence has been offered. See, e.g., Garcia-Morales, 382 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104, 119 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210 (1st Cir.1986); see also 6 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 1006.04[3] (observing that it is generally viewed as improper... for a party to open its case with an overview witness who summarizes evidence that has not yet been presented to the jury). In Casas, we explained that [the use of] overview testimony is inherently problematic: such testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments in the overview but not in evidence. There is also the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed; objections could be sustained or the witness could change his or her story. Overview testimony by government agents is especially problematic because juries may place greater weight on evidence perceived to have the imprimatur of the government. 356 F.3d at 119-20. The purported overview testimony that Appellant claims to be objectionable is contained largely in the following response of Agent Toro, on direct examination, to the question of why Espada stopped making recordings of narcotics activity at Covadonga: Q. Why did those recordings stop in April 2003, sir? A. Well, on April 5, 2003, one of the leaders of the drug point, whose name was Luis Osorio, also known as Trumpi, was murdered. Mr. Oscar Espada had developed a good friendship with Trumpi, with Luis Osorio, and when Mr. Alex Capo Trujillo and Wilfredo Feliciano Rodriguez took over the leadership of the drug point, they evicted or ran Mr. Espada out of the housing, public housing project, because Mr. Espada was perceived, was seen as being part of the organization, as part of the group, of Mr. Osorio's group. Q. Sir, what happened to Mr. Espada after April '03? A. Well, on a Sunday morning he was shot inside the housing project, the public housing project, and we decided to pull him out of the apartment. As the Government concedes, Agent Toro's statement that Feliciano and Alex Trujillo assumed leadership of the Covadonga drug operation after the murder of Trumpi and evicted or ran Mr. Espada out of Covadonga, was precisely the sort of improper overview testimony from a case agent that we have condemned. Agent Toro's remarks were not based on his personal observations, and no evidence had been presented to support his conclusion that Appellant was in fact a leader of the drug point or that he participated in Espada's violent eviction from the housing project. See Garcia-Morales, 382 F.3d at 17 (finding that it was error to allow the case agent to testify that [the defendant] was a member of the drug conspiracy, even though the prosecution had not yet introduced evidence supporting this conclusion). In addition, Appellant argues that Agent Toro's statements were particularly harmful because they implicitly linked Feliciano to the attempted shooting of Espada and to the murder of Trumpi, thus inculpating Appellant in two highly prejudicial uncharged acts of violence, about which the Government presented no admissible evidence. Although Agent Toro's statements constituted improper hearsay testimony, Appellant cannot surmount the high hurdle of plain error review and show that the improper remarks affected the outcome of the trial. The determination of whether Agent Toro's testimony was harmful demands a panoramic, case-specific inquiry considering, among other things, the centrality of the tainted material, its uniqueness, its prejudicial impact, the uses to which it was put during the trial, the relative strengths of the parties' cases, and any telltales that furnish clues to the likelihood that the error affected the factfinder's resolution of a material issue.' Casas, 356 F.3d at 121 (quoting United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1182 (1st Cir. 1993)). Agent Toro's hearsay statement that Feliciano assumed leadership of the drug point was harmless in light of the ample evidence subsequently presented by the Government to prove that Feliciano did in fact act as a leader of the Covadonga drug point beginning in April 2003, following Trumpi's murder. Omar Medina testified at length about Feliciano's leadership role at Covadonga. Medina's testimony established that Feliciano employed him, as well as at least five other sellers and runners, to sell heroin and cocaine on a daily basis. The evidence also showed that Feliciano supplied his drug workers with firearms. In addition, the videotapes secretly made by Espada showed Feliciano carrying a weapon and engaging in drug transactions with individuals who Medina testified worked for Feliciano. Thus, because ample evidence was subsequently offered to show that Feliciano was, in fact, a leader of the drug conspiracy at Covadonga, Agent Toro's hearsay remarks had minimal impact and were harmless. See, e.g., United States v. Vazquez Guadalupe, 407 F.3d 492, 500 (1st Cir.2005) (finding no plain error in admission of purportedly improper overview testimony where government presented overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt); Casas, 356 F.3d at 122 (finding that case agent's hearsay conclusion that defendant was leader of drug organization was harmless because such a conclusion was the same determination that the jury would have drawn in the absence of the inadmissible testimony, in light of government's substantial evidence). Similarly, although Agent Toro's conclusion that Feliciano and Trujillo ran Espada out of Covadonga remained unsubstantiated by subsequent evidence and possibly resulted in some small degree of prejudice against Feliciano, the error was ultimately harmless. Even if the jury accepted as true Agent Toro's conclusory remark about Appellant's involvement in Espada's violent ouster, the tainted material was hardly central to the Government's case. To support a conviction for the charged narcotics conspiracy, the Government was not required to prove that Feliciano attempted to shoot Espada or otherwise participated in his eviction. See Garcia-Morales, 382 F.3d at 18 (finding improper testimony harmless in part because the evidence was not essential to proving [Appellant's] involvement in the conspiracy). Further, the Government did not make extensive use of Toro's suggestion that Feliciano ran Espada out of Covadonga. Apart from the above-quoted remark from Agent Toro's testimony, the Government did not link Feliciano to the attempted shooting of Espada and did not attempt in its opening or closing arguments to imply that Feliciano played a role in that incident. Finally, as discussed, the Government offered substantial evidence of Appellant's guilt. By contrast, the defense's case was relatively weak, largely limited to cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses. In light of the strength of the prosecution's case and the limited impact of the improperly admitted testimony, we are convinced that the jurors' judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent that Appellant objects to Agent Toro's testimony on the ground that it permitted the jury to speculate about whether Appellant played a part in the murder of Trumpi, the argument is without merit. Although Agent Toro stated that Feliciano became a leader of the drug point after Trumpi was murdered, Toro did not attribute the murder to Feliciano. The mere possibility that the jury may have speculated that Feliciano played some role in the assassination of the individual whom he supplanted as an owner of the drug point does not rise to the level of plain error.