Opinion ID: 203972
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common purpose, interdependence and overlap

Text: In determining whether the proof suffices to establish the single conspiracy charged, we ultimately look at the totality of the evidence. United States v. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411, 421 (1st Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Factors to be considered in assessing the totality of the evidence include: (1) the existence of a common purpose, e.g., the distribution of drugs; (2) interdependence of various elements in the overall plan; and (3) overlap among the participants. United States v. Escobar-Figueroa, 454 F.3d 40, 48 (1st Cir.2006). After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have convicted each of the appellants of the single conspiracy charged. The government introduced evidence, predominately testimonial, that each of the appellants was a member of a large drug distribution network that had the common purpose of selling drugs for profit. The government's two cooperating witnesses, Rodriguez and Santiago, identified Pomales, Rosario, Calderón and Torres as members of the conspiracy. These witnesses testified that all of the appellants were point owners and that two of them, Rosario and Torres, performed other roles in the conspiracy as well. There was also substantial evidence of the distribution scheme's interdependence. Interdependence exists where the activities of one aspect of the scheme are necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d at 422 (citations omitted). Here, there was evidence that the successful operation of the network depended in part on agreements reached, and concerted actions taken by, the drug point owners and their employees. For example, there was evidence that point owners worked together to maximize profits. One way they accomplished this goal, both cooperating witnesses testified, was by setting prices at meetings. Point owners also maximized profits in another manner  by influencing competition within the project. Rodriguez testified that the point owners had power over point owner membership, observing that before a person could operate a drug point within the housing project, the prospective owner had to obtain authorization from the existing point owners. Corroborating Rodriguez's testimony with an example, Santiago testified that Rosario acquired a cocaine and crack point after receiving permission from the other point owners. Operating a drug point without clearance, Santiago also testified, could cost [a person] his life. This system influenced how much competition each point owner faced for his particular brand of drug and thereby allowed participants of the conspiracy oligarchical freedom from competition. There was also evidence that the participants acted interdependently with respect to security at the drug points. In addition to holding meetings to discuss, inter alia, the protection of the drug points from hold-ups, there was testimony that the point owners actively worked with each other to protect the drug points from threats. For example, Santiago testified that after one Wilfredo Sierra-Rosa (Sierra) threatened to take over Santiago's, Torres' and Rosario's drug points, Santiago and Rosario confronted Sierra, and Rosario killed him. See Pérez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d at 7 (concluding that there was no cognizable variance where evidence showed that the appellant accompanied a self-confessed member of the conspiracy during a murder committed to further the interests of the conspiracy). Also with respect to security, there was testimony that point owners and their enforcers stored weapons together inside the project. Santiago testified that Torres, in his role as an enforcer, stored weapons for Pomales in various places, including in automobiles which Pomales and Torres had purchased together. Similarly, Santiago testified that he and Rosario purchased rifles together to use for security purposes. Santiago further testified that he and Rosario stored guns and drugs in a Ford Windstar that Santiago and Torres had purchased and had customized for the purpose of secreting weapons and drugs. Interdependency was also demonstrated by the various rules established by the participants in the conspiracy. Santiago testified that, to avoid attracting police attention, the point owners agreed to prohibit people from stealing drugs within the project and from bringing stolen cars into the housing project. Point owners agreed on rules about what types of packaging could be used for the drugs. Those who failed to follow these rules could be disciplined. Rodriguez testified that point owners agreed to discipline out-of-line participants by beating them with a wooden board or rod. And Santiago testified that if a person was not in agreement with the other participants in the network and did something that was incorrect, he could get shot or his head bashed in. Both Rodriguez and Santiago testified that a point owner named Armando Valdes Medina (Valdes) was told at a meeting not to sell drugs in a particular type of packaging because that type of packaging was used by another point owner. After Valdes failed to follow this directive, Rosario and others murdered Valdes. Finally, as to overlap among the participants of the conspiracy, Santiago testified that Torres cooked crack for Pomales, Rosario and Rodriguez. Santiago further testified that Torres stored weapons for Pomales, and also stored weapons with Rosario and Santiago himself.