Opinion ID: 2803111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ramos's Threat to Spill Blood

Text: Andy testified about a threat Ramos made to spill the blood of a competitor at a drug point in Aguas Buenas if the competitor did not cease selling drugs there.20 Sonia makes a onesentence argument that this testimony was clearly more prejudicial than relevant, and unfairly distracted the jury from whether Appellant agreed to join a conspiracy with Ramos' enterprises in Caguas and Aguas Buenas, to how dangerous its members were. She therefore appears to premise her argument on her belief that the organization's activities outside of Yabucoa constituted a separate conspiracy, and were thus irrelevant to her. That premise is faulty, since, as we explained in addressing her prejudicial variance argument, the trial testimony from Andy showed evidence of interdependence and a common supply chain between the organization's various drug points. Ramos's attempts to maintain control over his drug points, rather than being a distraction, were certainly relevant to proving the conspiracy's existence. The fact that Sonia did not directly participate in this event does not-- taken alone--deem the evidence unduly prejudicial with respect to 20 Ramos's counsel objected to this testimony, but Sonia's did not join in the objection. We decline to deem the argument preserved for Sonia, particularly because the evidence pertained to Ramos, and the district court did not have an opportunity to evaluate its admissibility with regard to Sonia. Her argument is therefore forfeited and reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d 179, 189 (1st Cir. 2013) (rejecting an undeveloped argument that co-defendants may piggyback on one another's objections). -48- her conviction. Cf. Maryea, 704 F.3d at 73 (explaining, in responding to a prejudicial variance argument, that while knowledge of the broader conspiracy's existence is critical, the government need not prove that the defendant had knowledge of every other participant, or of the details of the conspiracy). Further, any potential prejudice against Sonia was diminished by the fact that Ramos never carried out the threat, and the incident did not involve her. 3. Shootout Between Sandra and Diana Flores-Rivera We have already described Andy's testimony related to Sandra and Diana's domestic dispute. Sonia also challenges this evidence, but on Rule 403 rather Rule 404(b) grounds. Her claim of undue prejudice with respect to the domestic dispute evidence is even weaker than Sandra's 404(b) argument, because Sonia was not involved in the alleged shooting at all. Sonia attempts to bridge this gap by claiming the story constituted evidence of guilt by association that served to suggest that because [Sonia] was a member of this family, she must also be guilty. But given the evidence's obvious probative value in illustrating the organization's disciplinary system, in addition to her failure to object below, this is a bridge too far. Having rejected each of her Rule 403-based arguments, we proceed to Sonia's next category of claimed evidentiary errors. -49-