Opinion ID: 24356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: can be held accountable for the conduct of

Text: Zacarias contends that the court erred in others whether or not the defendant is charged making a two-level increase pursuant to with a conspiracy. See § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), § 2A4.1(b)(3) for the use of a dangerous comment. (n.2). weapon. He argues that he did not possess or use a weapon during the commission of the Use of a dangerous weapon was more than crime and that, because he was not indicted for reasonably foreseeable to Zacarias, who, in conspiracy, he cannot be held accountable for fact, had actual knowledge that dangerous the conduct of the men who had guns. weapons were being used as he directed the holding and ransoming of Mickens. Thus, at We review de novo any legal conclusions best Zacarias “aided” and “abetted” the use of regarding application of the guidelines. See guns in holding Mickens, and, more probably, United States v. Gonzalez, 996 F.2d 88, 91 he “counseled, commanded” and “induced” the (5th Cir. 1993). Section 2A4.1(b)(3) provides use of the firearms. See § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A); cf. that “[i]f a dangerous weapon was used, United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d increase by 2 levels.” “Use” of a dangerous 1209, 1212-16 (5th Cir. 1990). weapon includes the discharge of a firearm or conduct that amounts to “more than IV. brandishing, displaying, or possessing a firearm Zacarias contends that the court deprived or other dangerous weapon.” § 2A4.1, com- him of his Sixth Amendment right to ment. (n.2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. confrontation and cross-examination when it (n.1(g)). refused to admit into evidence a tape recording of a conversation between the victim, The district court correctly concluded that Mickens, and Francisco Sanchez, the brother the use of guns to hold Mickens hostage was of Mario Sanchez, the other kidnaping victim. a “use” under the guidelines. Zacarias does Zacarias contends that the tape would have not disagree with this conclusion but avers that shown that Francisco Sanchez threatened 4 Mickens by saying that someone had to “pay of a tape recording of a telephone for what happened to his brother,” and that the conversation between Mickens and Francisco tape would have impeached Mickens’s Sanchez. Zacarias argued that Francisco Santestimony by showing that fear of Francisco chez stated on the tape that he was going to Sanchez gave Mickens a motive to testify that “get everybody” in retaliation for his brother’s Zacarias was a kidnaper. Zacarias contends kidnaping. Zacarias argued that Francisco that the relevant evidence on the tape would Sanchez was dangerous and terrifying, that his have discredited the other evidence against entire family was afraid of him, and that he him, which consisted only of “weak out of threatened Mickens. Zacarias argued that the court identifications and questionable in court tape constituted relevant evidence of Mickidentifications.” ens’s motive for testifying against Zacarias, i.e., to show that “somebody needs to go The government contends that the court down on this case.” properly excluded the recording, because the information on the tape was not relevant, was The court offered to admit a portion of the hearsay, and was only a collateral matter for recording that described Zacarias, identified as impeachment. The government contends, in Juanito on the tape, as a fat person, because at the alternative, that even if the exclusion of the trial, Zacarias was “not so fat.” The court evidence was error, the error was harmless, concluded that nothing else on the tape was because the evidence that identified Zacarias admissible “for any conceivable purpose.” The was strong and was corroborated by other court explained that evidence of Francisco evidence. Sanchez’s making threats was not admissible or relevant, because he was not involved in the A witness’s possible bias, prejudice, or mo- case. tivation for testifying is relevant evidence. See United States v. Alexius, 76 F.3d 642, 645 Zacarias’s attorney cross-examined Mick- (5th Cir. 1996). The exclusion of evidence rel- ens concerning his fear of Francisco Sanchez, evant to the bias or ulterior motive of a wit- and Mickens said that he was not afraid. ness may violate the Sixth Amendment. Unit- When he was asked whether everyone in the ed States v. Fortna, 796 F.2d 724, 734 (5th Sanchez family was afraid of Francisco SanCir. 1986). Nevertheless, a court retains broad chez, Mickens testified: “I wouldn’t say evdiscretion “in restricting the scope of cross- erybody’s afraid of him. I will say he’s crazy. examination, including how bias may be But I wasn’t afraid of him or nothing like proved.” Id. (citations omitted). that.” Mickens reiterated that he did not have any reason to be afraid of Francisco Sanchez. We review a restriction on the scope of cross-examination only for abuse of discretion. At that point, Zacarias’s counsel referred to Alexius, 76 F.3d at 644. “[E]videntiary rulings the tape recording of the telephone constitute reversible error only when they conversation between Mickens and Francisco affect a defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. Sanchez. Mickens denied having a telephone (citation omitted). conversation with Francisco Sanchez. Later, during the defense’s presentation of its case, Zacarias sought the admission into evidence Mickens testified that he did not remember 5 having the telephone conversation with Mickens’s friend, Roderick Redic, who Francisco Sanchez. delivered the ransom and the truck title in exchange for Mickens’s release, also identified A portion of the tape was then played while Zacarias in a pretrial photographic line-up and the jury was present. After hearing a portion at trial. of the tape, Mickens identified his voice and Francisco Sanchez’s voice, and Mickens iden- Moreover, an FBI agent testified that a tified another person who was present during government informant had connected Zacarias the telephone conversation that had been re- to the kidnaping and gave him a pager number corded. that matched a pager number that the agent had been given by another source. The pager Zacarias’s counsel asked Mickens whether was registered to Zacarias’s parents’ house. Francisco Sanchez had threatened him and The informant provided corroboration that Za- “everyone else in the world” during the carias was involved in the kidnaping through recorded conversation. Mickens denied that telephone calls made by the informant to the Francisco Sanchez had threatened him. Za- pager number. carias’s attorney offered the tape as impeachment evidence. The court stated that Although Zacarias asserts that the out-of- “it would be impeachment as to a completely court and in-court identifications were weak collateral matter, so it’s not admissible.” The and questionable, the record does not support court, however, allowed Zacarias to include this assertion. The eyewitnesses did not hesthe tape as a record exhibit. On redirect, itate in their identifications of Zacarias, and Mickens admitted that “people are afraid” of nothing in the record provides reason to Francisco Sanchez but again denied that he question the reliability of the photo was afraid of him. identification. Finally, Zacarias’s counsel also took the opportunity to cross-examine Mick- A witness’s biases and motivation for tes- ens about his fear of Francisco Sanchez. tifying are “always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his Even if Mickens’s motive for identifying testimony.” Alexius, 76 F.3d at 645 (citation Zacarias as one of his kidnapers was fear of and internal quotations omitted). Assuming Francisco Sanchez, the fact remains that Redic arguendo that the district court erred by ruling separately identified Zacarias as the one to that the alleged impeachment portion of the whom he paid the ransom. Thus, for Zacaritape recording was not admissible, the as’s theory of defense to be borne out, there exclusion of the evidence was harmless, also must have been a reason for Redic not because “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt only to lie about Zacarias’s being the ransomthat the error did not contribute to the er, but there must also have been a reason for verdict.” Id. at 646 (citation omitted). Redic to pick out Zacarias’s photograph from the photo line-up. Zacarias provided no evi- Zacarias did not testify; his only defense dence casting doubt on Redic’s testimony, nor was erroneous identification. In a pre-trial could he dispute the government’s photographic line-up and at trial, Mickens corroborating evidence that a pager linked to identified Zacarias as one of the kidnapers. Zacarias was used as part of the ransom 6 negotiations surrounding the holding of Mario Sanchez. There was ample evidence upon which to convict, and, therefore, it is plain beyond a reasonable doubt that any fear Mickens had of Francisco Sanchez did not contribute to the verdict. The exclusion of the alleged impeachment evidence on the tape recording was harmless.