Opinion ID: 2819210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: M.V., did you think you would go anywhere else?

Text: A. Yes. He told me – [Government]: Objection. Hearsay. The witness: – that I was going – The Court: Sustained. Sidebar, counsel. (Sidebar reported; not transcribed herein.) 10 UNITED STATES V. TORRES because [Torres] didn’t tie it up [] to acting on that instruction,” or admitting it. However, since Torres never drove to the D.M.V. or the tire shop, the district court found Torres had actually offered his testimony regarding the inquiries “for the assumption of the truth, for the assumption they are true to build a thirdparty defense . . . .” It concluded, “if [the inquiries] are not presented for the truth of the matter, or if they don’t prove or disprove any facts as the defendant suggests, they are not relevant.” In other words, “[a]s the statement is not offered to prove any facts or its truth, it’s not relevant.” However, Torres was permitted to testify that Fernando had borrowed his truck on four occasions leading up to his arrest. The other major difference between the first and second trial was the testimony of a defense expert witness—Efren Lapuz, a former special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Although the Government did not present drug trafficking organization (“DTO”) “structure” or “modus operandi” evidence in its case-in-chief, Lapuz testified for the defense about the value of seventy-three kilograms of cocaine and where DTOs generally purchased the drug. The district court ruled that Torres had opened the door to DTO “modus operandi” evidence, and the Government then impeached Lapuz on cross-examination about prior testimony from an unrelated trial where he had averred that DTOs rarely utilized “blind mules”5 because drug traffickers preferred straightforward transactions—“I pay you, you take the risk.” The Government also elicited helpful testimony from Lapuz that because border crossings were a point of risk, DTOs 5 A “blind mule” is a person who transports drugs for a DTO without his knowledge or consent. UNITED STATES V. TORRES 11 generally attempted to minimize the number of such crossings with a single load concealed in the vehicle. On defense re-direct Lapuz testified that drug cartels generally did not care if the courier was unknowing. He testified that cartels like to use a blind mule because it diffuses the risk of compromising the entire organization if he is arrested; it is an inexpensive mode of transporting drugs; and, so long as they can control the transaction on the other side, the cartel has gained something without losing anything. On re-cross examination, the Government questioned Lapuz about whether he had ever heard of a blind mule with a wellhidden compartment transporting drugs, as opposed to magnetic compartments on the undercarriage that are easily removable. Lapuz stated he had not personally seen them, but had heard about it in the media. On June 6, 2013, after deliberating for approximately two and a half hours, the jury found Torres guilty of one count of importation of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. The district court sentenced Torres to 132 months’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.