Opinion ID: 697782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dominguez

Text: 30 Dominguez contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. He argues that the district court improperly allowed a government witness to testify concerning an alleged post-arrest statement that the government withheld from him prior to trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) and the district court's standing discovery order. 31 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) and the district court's standing discovery order impose a duty on the government to disclose Dominguez's post-arrest statements made in response to any government agent's interrogation. Prior to trial, the government only disclosed to Dominguez's lawyer the following post-arrest statement made to DEA Agent Cynthia Schultz: 32 When asked about the foot lockers that Sanchez had, Dominguez said that he had looked inside them and that they contained kilos. He said that he didn't want anything to do with them. Dominguez also said that he had touched the kilos in the footlocker. 33 Based on this disclosure, Dominguez's lawyer prepared a trial strategy emphasizing that Dominguez's statements clearly revealed that he didn't want anything to do with the cocaine that Sanchez offered to him and properly told her to take it away. Thus, at the beginning of trial, Dominguez's lawyer made the following opening statement: 34 No, no, I don't want it. No, no way. These will be the words that you will hear out of the mouth of my client, Santos Dominguez.... When Santos Dominguez, at the very tail end of this thing, was offered to buy what was believed to be fifty kilograms of cocaine by someone else, because they needed to find a buyer, he said, no. Just say no.... [T]hat person was told to leave, and left the apartment building with the supposed cocaine in the trunk. 35 During the government's direct examination, Agent Schultz revealed for the first time that Dominguez said [t]hat he had touched the kilos inside the trunk and said they were strange. (Emphasis added.) 36 Dominguez moved for a mistrial alleging that the government committed a discovery violation because it failed to disclose prior to trial that Dominguez said that the kilos were strange. 37 A discovery violation under rule 16(a)(1)(A) or a standing discovery order is reversible error only when it violates a defendant's substantial rights. See United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Silien, 825 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Barragan, 793 F.2d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir.1986). Substantial prejudice exists when a defendant is unduly surprised and lacks an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense, or if the mistake substantially influences the jury. United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d at 1566; United States v. Barragan, 793 F.2d at 1259. Inadvertence does not render a discovery violation harmless; rather, the purpose of rule 16 is to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial rather than to punish the government's non-compliance. United States v. Noe, 821 F.2d 604, 607 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Rodriguez, 799 F.2d 649, 654 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Padrone, 406 F.2d 560, 560-61 (2d Cir.1969). 38 Upon a review of the record, we hold that the government substantially prejudiced Dominguez's defense when it failed to disclose that Dominguez told Agent Schultz that the kilos were strange. First, as announced in his opening statement, Dominguez's lawyer intended to use the government's previously disclosed post-arrest statements to convince the jury that Dominguez had no experience with and wanted nothing to do with the proffered kilos of cocaine. Agent Schultz's trial testimony that Dominguez said the kilos were strange after touching them, shattered this defense because a person would not know a kilo of cocaine felt strange unless the person had some experience with the feel of real packages of cocaine. Moreover, the government drove home this inference in its closing argument. 5 39 Second, Agent Schultz's testimony unexpectedly corroborated Sanchez's testimony that Dominguez said the kilos felt funny. Prior to trial, Dominguez moved to sever his trial from Sanchez's trial because she planned to testify that Dominguez stated that the kilos felt funny. 6 In response, the government promised not to elicit testimony from Sanchez concerning that statement. Thus, the government led Dominguez to believe that would not corroborate Sanchez's trial testimony that Dominguez told her the kilos felt funny. 40 Based on the government's assurances and Dominguez's recorded post-arrest statement, Dominguez planned to impeach Sanchez if she testified that Dominguez said the kilos felt funny. Agent Schultz's testimony eroded the effectiveness of this trial strategy when she unexpectedly testified that Dominguez also said in his own post-arrest statement that the kilos were strange. If Dominguez had known the government would present such testimony, he could have changed his trial strategy. For example, he could have moved to suppress the statement, or he could have subpoenaed the DEA agents who recorded Dominguez's post-arrest statements to explain why their written account differed from Agent Schultz's recollection. 41 These facts sufficiently demonstrate, under this court's precedent, that the government's discovery violation substantially prejudiced Dominguez's defense. See United States v. Noe, 821 F.2d 604, 607 (11th Cir.1987) (nondisclosure of a tape recording was reversible error because it attacked the very foundation of the defense strategy); United States v. Rodriguez, 799 F.2d 649, 654 (11th Cir.1986) (nondisclosure of documents was reversible error because the defendant did not have the opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence). 42 Moreover, in reaching this conclusion, we reject the government's contention that Dominguez's subsequent attempt to impeach Agent Schultz's testimony served to cure the government's discovery violation. We cannot penalize Dominguez and reward the government for Dominguez's reasonable attempts to mitigate the government's breach of the discovery rules.
43 Even though we reverse Dominguez's conviction on other grounds, we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 961 (11th Cir.1994) (Although we are reversing [the defendant's] conviction because of harmful constitutional error, nonetheless we must still rule on [the defendant's] sufficiency argument); also see United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1369 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitapelli, 786 F.2d 1461, 1464 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Palzer, 745 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1984). 44 Dominguez rightfully contends that in order to sustain his conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine, the evidence must show that he knew the cocaine would be imported. United States v. Champion, 813 F.2d 1154, 1168 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Bollinger, 796 F.2d 1394 (11th Cir.1986). Dominguez contends, however, that no evidence proved that he knew the cocaine in this case was imported. According to Dominguez, the evidence only demonstrated that he was a mere buyer in a buyer and seller relationship with the other codefendants rather than an actual member of their conspiracy to import the cocaine. 45 The government responds that it need not prove that Dominguez had knowledge of all the details and phases of the conspiracy, but rather that he knew the essential nature of the agreement. See United States v. Meester, 762 F.2d 867, 881 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1024, 106 S.Ct. 579, 88 L.Ed.2d 562 (1985). They assert that the jury could reasonably rely upon circumstantial evidence to establish Dominguez's agreement with the conspiracy. United States v. Tamargo, 672 F.2d 887, 889 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 864, 103 S.Ct. 141, 74 L.Ed.2d 119 (1982). The government directs us to follow this court's repeated admonition that there is rarely any direct evidence of any agreement to join a conspiracy, and thus, the defendant's assent can be inferred from acts that furthered the conspiracy's purposes. United States v. Miller, 693 F.2d 1051, 1053 (11th Cir.1982). 46 The evidence presented at trial to support Dominguez's complicity in the conspiracy to import cocaine is sufficient. Dominguez first appears in this case after the undercover DEA agents refuse to relinquish the recently imported cocaine to Fontalvo and Camargo-Vergara. Fontalvo notified his Colombian associate that the couriers would not release the cocaine until they received payment. The Colombian arranged for Fontalvo to meet Dominguez at a supermarket. Apparently, Fontalvo and Dominguez had never met before because the Colombian found it necessary to describe Dominguez to Fontalvo. Dominguez then purchased the cocaine through a trusted middle person. Obviously, Dominguez had some form of contact with the Colombian. These activities suffice to support a reasonable jury's conclusion that Dominguez conspired to import cocaine. See United States v. Champion, 813 F.2d 1154, 1168 (11th Cir.1987) (a defendant cannot be convicted of importing cocaine unless the government establishes that he knew the substance was imported); United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1360 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017, 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3476, 3477, 87 L.Ed.2d 613 (1985). 47 In the absence of direct evidence demonstrating knowledge, this court has looked to highly probative circumstantial evidence supporting the inference that the defendant was aware of or facilitated the importation. For example, in Champion this court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendants for cocaine importation where the defendants actually helped off-load the cocaine from airplanes. Also see United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1303-04 (11th Cir.1985) (defendants helped off-load cocaine once it arrived at the port); United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643, 652 (11th Cir.1984) (defendants helped off-load marijuana from boat for distribution). In Meester, this court held that the defendant's extensive and longstanding acquaintance with the coconspirators and his assistance in procuring airplanes proved his knowledge of the importation of narcotics. Meester, 762 F.2d at 881. In Bascaro, the massive quantity of marijuana involved (approximately 1.5 million pounds), the defendant's frequent and extensive interaction with the coconspirators, and the defendant's presence at various hiding places for the imported contraband proved his awareness of the narcotics importation. Bascaro, 742 F.2d at 1360. 48 The evidence supporting Dominguez's conviction included his name being on the note pad of a coconspirator, the Colombian drug lord's awareness that Dominguez might purchase the cocaine, and Dominguez's willingness to purchase the drugs immediately upon arrival in the United States. This evidence, we hold, is sufficient to support Dominguez's conviction for conspiring to import the cocaine. 49 For the same reasons, we hold the evidence is sufficient to support Dominguez's conviction for the substantive offense of importing the cocaine. Dominguez argues that because he did not personally participate in the importation offense, his conviction can only be sustained under a Pinkerton theory or an aiding and abetting theory. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946) (a conspirator is criminally liable for all reasonably foreseeable crimes committed during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy); United States v. Monaco, 702 F.2d 860, 881 (11th Cir.1983). No Pinkerton instruction was given to the jury; thus, Dominguez argues that his conviction can only be sustained under an aiding and abetting theory. See United States v. Perez, 922 F.2d 782, 785 n. 4 (11th Cir.) (because the court failed to give a Pinkerton instruction, Perez's liability for the substantive offense must rest upon on aiding and abetting theory), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1223, 111 S.Ct. 2840, 115 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1991); United States v. Monaco, 702 F.2d at 881; United States v. Raffone, 693 F.2d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2094, 77 L.Ed.2d 303 (1983). 50 To prove aiding and abetting, the government had to demonstrate that: (1) a substantive importation offense was committed; (2) that Dominguez associated himself with that criminal venture; and (3) that Dominguez committed some act which furthered the crime. See United States v. Perez, 922 F.2d at 785. A person cannot aid and abet a crime that has already been completed. United States v. Perez, 922 F.2d at 786 n. 5; Roberts v. United States, 416 F.2d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir.1969). 51 Importation is a continuing crime that is not complete until the controlled substance reaches its final destination. See United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643, 652 (11th Cir.1984). 52 The government argues that Dominguez was the final intended recipient and destination for the cocaine; consequently, the importation continued until he received the cocaine. Although Dominguez did not appear in this case until Fontalvo and Camargo-Vergara needed money to purchase the drugs from the undercover agents posing as drug couriers, he agreed to purchase the cocaine upon importation. Obviously, Dominguez was the final intended recipient of the cocaine. Consequently, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support Dominguez's conviction on an aiding and abetting theory. 53 The evidence supporting Dominguez's conviction for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine is substantial. Dominguez's aggregate acts of arranging to purchase approximately 200 kilograms of cocaine through the use of a middle-person, avoiding surveillance, and then ultimately rejecting the cocaine merely because the cocaine felt funny can adequately support a reasonable jury's assessment that he conspired to possess and distribute the cocaine.