Opinion ID: 658545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rosa's Conviction of Attempt

Text: 77 In order to establish that a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime, the government must prove that he (1) had the intent to commit the crime, and (2) engaged in conduct amounting to a 'substantial step' towards the commission of the crime. United States v. Martinez, 775 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir.1985). A substantial step, although it may be less than the last act necessary before the actual commission of the substantive crime, entails more than mere preparation. United States v. Manley, 632 F.2d 978, 987 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112, 101 S.Ct. 922, 66 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); see also United States v. Cea, 914 F.2d 881, 888-89 (7th Cir.1990). [E]vidence of a verbal agreement alone, without more, is insufficient as a matter of law to support an attempt conviction. United States v. Delvecchio, 816 F.2d 859, 862 (2d Cir.1987). 78 In Delvecchio, the defendants who were charged with attempt to possess narcotics had met with a government agent and a government informant to negotiate a narcotics transaction. At the meeting, the defendants agreed to purchase 5 kilograms of heroin for $195,000 a kilogram; the sale was to occur on the following evening. However, the defendants failed to appear at the agreed meeting place and the transaction was never consummated. We held that these facts were insufficient to support the defendants' convictions for attempted heroin possession. 79 Count 12 of the indictment charged that between June 1 and July 31, 1989, Rosa had attempted to possess heroin with intent to distribute it. This charge arose out of negotiations during that period between DEA Special Agent James Agee, acting undercover, and Rosa. Agee sought to purchase one kilogram of pure heroin from Rosa, who informed him that his Chinese suppliers provided heroin only in 700-gram bricks and would cost $112,000-$116,000 per brick. Although there was ample evidence of Rosa's participation in the Organization's activities, including his wholesale heroin purchases for resale by the Organization and his running of Organization spots grossing millions of dollars in retail sales, Rosa contends that there was no proof that he took any substantial step toward acquiring heroin for resale to Agee. The government states in its brief on appeal that Rosa admitted that he sought out and found a drug supplier (government's brief on appeal at 82); but it has provided us with no citation to the record where it contends such an admission was made, and our review of the transcript, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, has not revealed such evidence. 80 Agee testified on direct examination that he had a face-to-face conversation with Rosa at a mall and several telephone conversations with him thereafter, all contacts being initiated by Agee: 81 Q. Can you tell us what was discussed during the conversation at the Kings Plaza mall? 82 A. Basically I came down, I told Oscar that I was down there, that I had the money to purchase the heroin, which he acknowledged and he then later told me that he would get back with me. 83 Q. Did he tell you anything else? 84 A. He said no, he has to check his source and I was to give him a beep the next day to find out whether or not he had made contact. 85 .... 86 Q. What else did he say? 87 A. I was to beep him the next day to see if in fact he made contact. 88 Q. Did you in fact speak with Mr. Rosa again? 89 A. Yes, I did. 90 Q. When was that? 91 A. That was a couple of weeks afterwards I spoke to him on the phone. 92 Q. Did you beep him? 93 A. Yes. 94 .... 95 Q. Were you able to record that conversation? 96 A. No, I wasn't. 97 .... 98 Q. What was said during that conversation? 99 A. I had asked him what was the problem, had he made contact with his source or not and he was saying that he had approximate [sic ] with his source, he thinks his source might have been locked up. 100 Q. Did you ever do the deal with Mr. Rosa? 101 A. No, I did not. 102 (Tr. 888-90.) Agee's testimony on cross-examination was similar: 103 Q. So it's clear that [the first] conversation is just preliminary negotiations; isn't that correct? 104 A. That's correct. 105 Q. And the fact is that when you left then, nothing came of that; isn't that right? 106 A. Nothing came of what? 107 Q. After June 27, Mr. Rosa never got in touch with you? 108 A. That's correct. 109 Q. Until a period of time passed according to you until July 10 when you made another call? 110 A. That's correct. 111 Q. So he certainly made no attempt to reach out to you; isn't that right? 112 A. That's correct. 113 .... 114 Q. Now, on July 10 and July 11 you also had conversations; isn't that right? 115 A. That's correct. 116 Q. And again Mr. Rosa didn't initiate the contact with you; isn't that right? 117 A. That's correct. 118 Q. And in fact you said when you met on the eleventh that you would see him the next day; isn't that right? 119 A. I'll reach out for him, I said, that's correct. 120 Q. And it's your testimony that you had the money on the eleventh; isn't that correct? 121 A. That's correct. 122 Q. And Mr. Rosa said that he had to touch base with his source or something; isn't that correct? 123 A. That's correct. 124 .... 125 Q. Did you ask him to go and get the drugs on July 11? 126 A. Did I ask him to go and get them? 127 Q. Yes. 128 A. Not in that term, no. 129 Q. In fact you put it off for another day and said I'll call you tomorrow; isn't that right? 130 A. No. He put me off. He had things that he had to reach out and check his source and get back with him. 131 Q. This putting you off is also consistent with his wanting to do any kind of drug deal; isn't that right? 132 A. As far as my knowledge, no. 133 .... 134 Q. And it's also your testimony that ... during that entire period of time you never purchased any narcotics from Mr. Rosa; isn't that right? 135 A. That's correct. 136 Q. And in fact, you never came to any agreement with Mr. Rosa as to any meeting where the money and the drugs would be together; isn't that right? 137 A. That's correct. 138 .... 139 Q. Did you ever receive any contraband from Mr. Rosa as a result of your talking to him? 140 A. No, I did not. 141 Q. Did you ever give him any money as a result of your conversations? 142 A. No. 143 (Tr. 907-10.) 144 This testimony did not reveal a substantial step by Rosa toward acquiring heroin for resale to Agee, for Rosa is described merely as saying at the outset that he needed to check with his supplier and saying at the end that his supplier might be in jail. Agee did not testify that Rosa claimed to have entered into an agreement with a supplier for heroin to sell to Agee, or even that Rosa said he had made an inquiry of a supplier for that purpose. Agee's testimony thus provides no support for the government's claim that Rosa admitted that he sought out and found a drug supplier. 145 The only other evidence cited by the government in support of its contention that Rosa took a substantial step toward acquiring heroin for sale to Agee is the testimony of cooperating witness Jerson Ramos. Ramos, a manager of Organization spots in East New York in the summer of 1989, attributed Rosa's failure to make the proposed sale to Agee to a statement by Rosa that since the Chinese were hot nobody wanted to sell. (Tr. 600.) According to the government's evidence and theory of the case, however, Rosa was one of three Organization members responsible for purchasing heroin for the Organization's retail sales; there was nothing in Rosa's statement, as Ramos described it, that indicated that Rosa had made any effort to obtain heroin from his Chinese sources in order to sell it to Agee. Ramos himself offered no first-hand evidence that Rosa had made any such effort; nor did he testify that Rosa said he had made any inquiries as to the availability of heroin for resale to Agee. 146 In sum, Rosa did not produce any heroin for the proposed sale to Agee, and there was no evidence that Rosa ever entered into an agreement with a supplier or made inquiry of a supplier to obtain heroin for the proposed sale to Agee. The evidence provided no basis on which a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosa had taken a substantial step toward possessing heroin for resale to Agee, and it therefore was insufficient to support Rosa's conviction for attempt. 147 Accordingly, we reverse Rosa's conviction on count 12 and remand for dismissal of that count. Since it is unclear what effect, if any, acquittal on that count has on his sentence, we vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. 148