Opinion ID: 3063358
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Redirect Examination

Text: On direct examination, Ms. Cacho, the chemist, testified about the tests she performed on some of the drugs in order to conclude that they were heroin and cocaine. During cross-examination, Gil-Martínez's defense counsel asked Ms. Cacho whether she knew if other tests -- such as fingerprint analysis and DNA testing -- had been performed on the packages containing the drugs. Defense counsel's point was that no tests linked the Appellants to the drugs. Ms. Cacho testified that she did not do anything other than analyze the chemical composition of the substances. On redirect examination, the prosecutor asked Ms. Cacho, Did you watch the video of the defendants throwing the drugs into the water? Gil-Martínez's defense counsel objected and stated that [t]hat was not part of the cross-examination. The district court allowed the question, to which Ms. Cacho responded, No. Although they did not object at trial to the prosecutor's question to Ms. Cacho on redirect examination, Peña-Santo and Vicente-Arias now argue that it was a loaded and speaking question that aimed to confuse the jury by making them believe that there was direct evidence linking them to the crimes charged. They allege that, because there was no direct evidence or witness identifying them as throwing anything into the water and no one -27- could tell from the video whether they were the ones throwing the drugs overboard, they are entitled to a new trial. Since Peña-Santo and Vicente-Arias failed to object to the question at the trial level, our review is only for plain error.9 Their claim falls short because, at the very least, they failed to establish plain-error review's third and fourth prongs. Specifically, Peña-Santo and Vicente-Arias have not shown that their substantial rights were affected and that the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of their judicial proceedings were seriously impaired, especially because Ms. Cacho responded to the question in the negative. Although they argue that the question wrongly gave the impression that direct evidence (the video) showed them throwing the drugs overboard, the fact that Ms. Cacho responded that she had not seen the video -- coupled with the fact that the jury examined the evidence (including the video) from which the government could lawfully suggest that the jury draw an inference that Appellants were the ones throwing the drugs overboard10 -- sufficiently attenuated any effect that the question 9 We note that only Gil-Martínez objected to the prosecutor's question at the trial level, but he did so on different grounds -- that the question went beyond the scope of the cross-examination -- and neither Peña-Santo nor Vicente-Arias joined his objection. 10 The government may suggest to the jury which inferences should be drawn from the evidence as long as the government does not know that the suggested inferences are false or has very strong reasons to doubt those inferences. See United States v. Kasenge, 660 F.3d 537, 542 (1st Cir. 2011) (stating that [a]lthough it is the jury's job to draw the inferences, there is nothing improper in the -28- alone could have had. This is just not the kind of blockbuster error for which plain error review tends to afford relief. Rodríguez, 675 F.3d at 64.