Opinion ID: 152718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conspiracy to Kidnap

Text: To obtain a conviction for conspiracy, the government was required to prove that Sanchez: (1) agreed to commit an illegal act; (2) committed an overt act in furtherance of that agreement; and (3) had an intent to commit the substantive offense, in this case kidnapping. United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 635 (7th Cir.1998). As applicable here, the kidnapping statute punishes [w]hoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, and the person so kidnapped is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Sanchez argues that the evidence was not sufficient for a jury to find that he intended to kidnap Vega and Maria Jimenez. We disagree. The government presented ample evidence of Sanchez's intent. Francisco Jimenez testified that at a face-to-face meeting with Sanchez on October 10, 2006, Sanchez explained that he planned to kidnap two people who owed Vasquez money. Francisco told the jury that Sanchez said he was going to take the kidnapping victims to Mexico and claimed to be acting with Vasquez's consent. Sanchez said he would need money, a safehouse, and an automobile to accomplish the kidnapping, and asked for Francisco's help. He identified the intended kidnapping targets as Yolanda, who owned a restaurant at 31st and Lawndale, and someone with the last name Jimenez. After this initial meeting, Francisco Jimenez spoke with Sanchez on several occasions about the kidnapping, and recordings of these conversations were played for the jury at trial. The two spoke on the telephone a day after the initial meeting, at which time Sanchez again discussed his plans for the kidnapping and told Francisco that he needed a van that will allow me to head down there with the person. Sanchez called Francisco again about a week later. Although Sanchez used coded language, Francisco testified that Sanchez was discussing the arrangements for the kidnapping that he had just made on a trip to Mexico. More specifically, Sanchez said the Mexican drug cartel had agreed to assist once Sanchez brought the victims to the intended drop-off point at the border. Sanchez repeated his initial request that Francisco help him find a safehouse and a van to use in the kidnapping. A few days later Sanchez said he no longer needed help in securing a safehouse because he had located a ranch in Joliet for that purpose. The two further discussed the specifications for the van, agreeing that it should have tinted windows and new license plates. The recording of the last meeting between Sanchez and Francisco Jimenez completed the picture for the jury. Sanchez inspected the van and said it was more or less what he needed but that it would take about a week to secure license plates. Asked about how many people would be traveling in the van, Sanchez initially said two and then clarified, [t]wo and two of us that might be going. He then explained that he might need more people to help with the pick up ... who will get into the car with the guys. Sanchez also described in some detail the ranch in Joliet that he had secured as a temporary safehouse for the victims. He then explained how he would take them to the Mexican border where members of the drug cartel would be waiting to take them to Sinaloa, Mexico. That Sanchez referred to the victims as Jimenez and Yolanda does not undermine the government's case, as Sanchez contends. First, one of the kidnapping targets was in fact named Jimenez, and although neither went by the name Yolanda, they were a married couple who owned two restaurants called Yolanda's. Second, although neither of the Yolanda's restaurants was located at 31st and Lawndale, one was located approximately two blocks from that address. Finally, the background evidence regarding the underlying drug-trafficking conspiracy and the payment of Jose Jimenez's drug debt to Vasquez convincingly tied Vasquez to Maria Jimenez (Jose's cousin) and her husband Ignacio Vega; their ownership of restaurants named Yolanda's made it clear that Sanchez understood who the targets of the kidnapping were. Sanchez argues in the alternative that most of the taped conversations introduced at trial related to the drug-trafficking activity of the Vasquez organization and that the evidence is really more consistent with a drug-smuggling conspiracy, not a conspiracy to kidnap. This is an attempt to invoke the principle that reversal is required whenever evidence `gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence,' and as such `a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.1996)). This is not remotely a case in which the evidence is in equipoise. Although there was significant background evidence of drug trafficking, Sanchez's recorded conversations during October 2006 are sufficient to establish the kidnapping conspiracy. Though he often used coded language, Sanchez's intent to kidnap is clear from the detailed descriptions of the minivan he needed, the safehouse he secured, and the plans that were in place to deliver the victims to the waiting members of the Mexican drug cartel on the border.