Opinion ID: 564839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Conspiracy Theory of Defense

Text: 18 The defendant contends that his trial counsel was grossly deficient and ineffective when, during his closing argument to the jury, he conceded that Andres Guerrero was guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The defendant's trial counsel did not (as the defendant contends) concede that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense; rather, the defendant's trial counsel argued that the defendant was involved in another separate and distinct conspiracy to distribute cocaine: 19 MR. MARTINEZ: (Counsel for Guerrero) Our defense, as you don't know yet, is that maybe Mr. Guerrero was a member of a conspiracy, but it didn't produce the 30 kilos. You'll have to find, and the judge will instruct you and you will read it, that he was a member of the ultimate conspiracy that ultimately delivered the 30 kilos. 20 His conspiracy was to deliver 30 kilos of a brand of cocaine that was marked or should have been marked 'Tia'. But--excuse me. This conspiracy was supposed to deliver 30 kilos of La Reina. 21 MR. NEWMAN: (Assistant United States Attorney) Your honor, I'm going to object to this. The indictment does not allege that. 22 THE COURT: I don't know whether it does, and the jury has heard the evidence, too. And whatever of these arguments are not consistent with your memory of the evidence, you just ignore the lawyers. 23 MR. MARTINEZ: I'll correct myself. The conspiracy Mr. Andres Guerrero was in was to deliver 30 kilos of cocaine marked La Reina. And ultimately what shows, and up the evidence substantiates [sic] that Mr. Andres Guerrero was talking about La Reina constantly, what shows up is a cocaine marked 'Tia'. 24 This defense of multiple conspiracies was clearly viable because had the jury been convinced (which they were not) that the defendant was not involved in the charged conspiracy, the jury would have found the defendant not guilty as charged. United States v. Glenn, 828 F.2d 855, 858 (1st Cir.1987). Throughout the trial, the defendant's counsel conducted the defense of the case in a manner consistent with the defense of multiple conspiracies. During opening statements, counsel asked the jury to listen closely to the evidence [because] on all nine tapes, you never hear my client on any of them until the ninth tape, and you hear him say a few things. He also discussed the video tape and told the jury to pay special attention to the video because the defendant was not present when Agent Martinez showed the money to Barrera and Sanchez the first time, and seemed totally disinterested and not involved the second time the money was flashed. Counsel replayed the video during the cross-examination of Agent Martinez, stressing that his client neither looked at the money nor mentioned cocaine. Moreover, during the cross-examination of Agent Martinez, the defendant's counsel established that the purchase of the defendant's supply of cocaine was to be of La Reina cocaine, but instead, the cocaine actually delivered was stamped TIA. Based on the evidence presented by the defendant's counsel, the trial court gave the jury a multiple conspiracy instruction. 3 The fact that the jury chose not to believe this defense does not mean that this court is required to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 25 Nonetheless, the defendant (with the benefit of hindsight), casts aspersions on his trial counsel's performance. However, [a] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's prospective at the time. Id. 26 The prospective facing the defendant's counsel at the time of trial was one of overwhelming evidence that the defendant was an integral part of the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The government's case against the defendant consisted of the following: 1) approximately 250 pages of transcripts of taped conversation documenting conversations among the conspirators regarding the cocaine transaction (in the first recorded conversation on March 10, 1989, Barrera refers to Guerrero as a source of cocaine, and throughout nearly all the subsequently recorded conversations, Barrera continues to mention Guerrero as the source of cocaine); 2) Barrera called the defendant Guerrero at Guerrero's place of employment in Alvarez's presence to inquire about the ship and gave the defendant the telephone number of Alvarez's beeper (Barrera related to Alvarez that the defendant would use code number 18 to page Alvarez on the beeper when the cocaine arrived); and 3) video tape of the defendant at the scene of the cocaine transaction. In light of this amount of evidence of the defendant's participation in the conspiracy, trial counsel's defense of multiple conspiracies arguing that the defendant participated in a different conspiracy rather than the one set forth in the indictment was entirely acceptable. 27