Opinion ID: 786582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Review

Text: 29 Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza argue that the government presented insufficient evidence at both the first and second trials. We consider the two trials in turn.
30 The first trial conducted in this case did not proceed on the basis of our holding in Cruz. Instead, the parties assumed at the time of the first trial that the government could prove its case with evidence that Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza joined the conspiracy post-seizure. Because the government had every incentive to present its best post-seizure evidence at the first trial, we cannot remand for another trial if we conclude that the government failed to put on sufficient evidence at the first. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (The [Double Jeopardy] Clause does not allow the State to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense[.]) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31 In addition to the Supreme Court's holding in Burks, two lines of our precedent require us to consider appellants' first-trial insufficiency argument before remanding for a third trial. First, it is our policy to consider sufficiency claims on direct appeal from a final judgment. See United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 828-29 & n. 11 (9th Cir.1992) (re-affirming this policy after Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 82 L.Ed.2d 242 (1984), which held that a sufficiency review is not constitutionally required). Second, we ordinarily allow appellants to challenge interlocutory orders on appeal from a final judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir.2001) (A necessary corollary to the final judgment rule is that a party may appeal interlocutory orders after entry of final judgment because those orders merge into that final judgment.). In this case, the district court issued an order that denied Jimenez Recio's and Lopez-Meza's first-trial acquittal motions but granted them a new trial on the conspiracy charge. That interlocutory order could not have been immediately appealed. See United States v. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d 966, 983 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that panel lacked jurisdiction over sufficiency challenge raised in interlocutory appeal from order denying judgment of acquittal but granting new trial). Now that the district court's order has merged into a final judgment, however, Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza should be allowed to appeal the evidentiary sufficiency ruling made after the first trial, at least in order to challenge the propriety of a third trial. 9 32 Our decision to review the evidence presented at the first trial is consistent with the Supreme Court's analysis in Richardson. Richardson held that a second trial following a hung-jury mistrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if, at the time the second trial begins, no court has ruled the government's first-trial evidence insufficient. 468 U.S. at 325-26, 104 S.Ct. 3081; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Zamarano, 23 F.3d 235, 237-38 (9th Cir.1994) (extending this Richardson holding to second trials ordered for trial error). Richardson also held that appellate courts may no longer exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory insufficiency appeals taken before a second trial has begun. 468 U.S. at 326 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 3081. Neither of these holdings affects our review here, however, because we do not consider appellants' first-trial insufficiency argument in order to decide whether the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We address an entirely different question: whether these defendants may be prosecuted at a third trial if the government presented insufficient evidence at the first. The procedural posture of this case allows us to consider this question because the third trial has not yet begun and because appellants' first-trial insufficiency argument is now properly raised on appeal from a final judgment. Consistent with Burks and our circuit's precedent, we must review the evidence presented by the government at the first trial in order to determine whether we may remand for a third trial. 10 33 Having carefully reviewed the record of the first trial, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Jimenez Recio's and Lopez-Meza's conspiracy convictions. The jury was entitled to believe Arce's testimony that a conspiracy existed, and the government presented direct evidence that Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza became connected with the conspiracy when they picked up the white Nissan. See United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir.2004) (When the evidence establishes that a conspiracy exists, there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for knowing participation in that conspiracy if the government is able to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, even a slight connection between the defendant and the conspiracy.) (internal quotation marks omitted). A rational juror could also have concluded that the government's circumstantial evidence proved Jimenez Recio's and Lopez-Meza's knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. The substantial value of the cocaine and marijuana involved in this case supports an inference that drug smugglers would not have entrusted the pick-up's cargo to an unknowing outsider. See United States v. Mesa-Farias, 53 F.3d 258, 259-60 (9th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1265-66 (9th Cir.1998). The parallel paths Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza followed along indirect back-roads routes also support an inference of knowledge, as do the incredible stories appellants told on arrest. Phone toll records and Arce's testimony about Lopez-Meza's post-arrest statements provide additional support for the jury's verdict. Although mere association is not enough to prove conspiracy, see United States v. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F.2d 886, 891 (9th Cir.1980), the circumstantial evidence presented at the first trial is enough when taken together and viewed in favor of the jury verdict. 11 See United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1097 (9th Cir.2004) ([C]ircumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it may be sufficient to sustain a conviction of conspiracy.) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 517 (9th Cir.1998) ([A] defendant's knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and from evidence of the defendant's actions.) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d at 1266 (jury could infer knowledge from defendant's implausible claim of ignorance and nervous demeanor); Aguilar v. United States, 363 F.2d 379, 380-81 (9th Cir.1966) (affirming trial court's decision to draw affirmative inferences of knowledge from a fishy story).
34 In most circumstances, the policy in this Circuit is for reviewing courts to consider claims of insufficient evidence on direct appeal, even if there exists some other basis for reversal, such as an error in the trial proceedings. United States v. Gergen, 172 F.3d 719, 724-25 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 586 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 321-22, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) (Brennan, J., concurring)). Consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence presented at a trial that was also marred by procedural error is normally necessary because a finding that the evidence was legally insufficient would bar a new trial. Bibbero, 749 F.2d at 586. Thus, we would normally review the evidence presented at the second trial to determine whether the evidence of post-seizure involvement in the conspiracy was legally insufficient to support a conviction. 35 However, in Weems, we created an exception to this requirement where there has been an intervening change in controlling law. 49 F.3d at 530 In Weems, the defendant was convicted on three counts of structuring currency transactions to evade the government's reporting requirements. Id. at 530. Subsequent to Weems's conviction, but prior to his appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994), holding that in such cases, the government must prove that the defendant knew that the structuring was illegal. The government conceded that, in light of this intervening precedent, Weems's conviction had to be reversed. Weems, however, invoked Bibbero and argued that the appellate court was required to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence under the rule announced in Ratzlaf before it could reverse for trial error. Weems, 49 F.3d at 530-31. We noted that the `core' of the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition on multiple prosecutions is denying the prosecution a second opportunity `to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.' Id. at 531(quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 41, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982)). However, we held that remanding for retrial where there had been an intervening change in controlling law did not give the government the opportunity to supply evidence it `failed' to muster at the first trial, since [t]he government had no reason to introduce such evidence under controlling precedent. Weems, 49 F.3d at 531. We added that retrial in such cases is not oppressive ... it merely permits the government to prove its case in accordance with the recent change in the law. Id. Accordingly, we declined to review the sufficiency of the evidence under the new standard and remanded for a new trial. 36 The same considerations guide our decision in this case not to review the sufficiency of the post-seizure evidence presented in appellants' second trial to determine whether a third trial is barred by double jeopardy. As in Weems, such an endeavor would be irrelevant in light of the trial error made clear by Recio II. Were we to find insufficient evidence of post-seizure involvement in the single-load conspiracy, we would still remand for a new trial. As in Weems, remand for a new trial does not give the government the proverbial second bite at the apple. At the time of the second trial, the government had no reason to introduce evidence showing that Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza joined the single-load conspiracy post-seizure, since binding Circuit precedent ( Cruz ) would have made such evidence unavailing. 12 Following Weems, we must presume[] that the government would have attempted to offer other evidence showing post-seizure involvement in the single-load conspiracy had such evidence been relevant under existing precedent. See Weems, 49 F.3d at 531 (citing Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 42, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988)). We are not required by the Double Jeopardy Clause to review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the second trial to determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence to convict Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza of post-seizure involvement in the single-load conspiracy, and we decline to do so.