Opinion ID: 790797
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Garcia's Trial

Text: 5 To prove Garcia's guilt at trial, the government relied on (1) the testimony of co-defendant Tejada, (2) telephone conversations among the conspirators recorded pursuant to court orders, (3) the surveillance observations of law enforcement officers who participated in the investigation of the charged conspiracy, and (4) physical items seized from the conspirators following their arrests. Because our resolution of this appeal requires harmless error analysis, we discuss this evidence in some detail.
6
7 Alejandro Tejada testified that he became involved in cocaine trafficking with Francisco Valentin and Yuri Garcia in 2000 at the behest of his long-time friend Valentin. Essentially, Tejada acted as a courier, who, on approximately fifteen to twenty occasions between the summer of 2001 and March 2002, picked up and delivered multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine. Tejada could not always recollect whether it was Valentin or Garcia who gave him the necessary instructions as to each particular transport because the two men were generally both present and participating during these encounters. Nevertheless, Tejada unequivocally testified that he received directions from each man many times. Tejada stated that when he delivered cocaine, it was Garcia who always inspected the drugs to confirm their quality. Further, Tejada stated that Garcia was in charge of the operation's finances. 8 Tejada testified that, on March 18, 2002, he picked up a quantity of cocaine and delivered it to Valentin and Garcia. When the three men unpackaged the drugs, Garcia pronounced them to be garbage, Trial Tr. at 241, prompting Valentin to call and complain to his direct supplier, Walmer DeArmas. Two days later, on March 20, 2002, as Tejada attempted to return the unsatisfactory drugs to DeArmas, he was arrested by law enforcement authorities who seized the ten kilograms of cocaine then in his possession. 9
10 In a series of recorded telephone conversations played for the jury, Valentin and Garcia discussed their drug operation with each other as well as with fellow conspirators. We focus here on calls relating to the charged March 20, 2002 transaction. 11 On the morning of March 18, 2002, Valentin and DeArmas discussed an imminent drug transaction and squabbled over price. Later that same day, DeArmas proposed consummating the deal at the site of a previous meeting, whereupon Valentin stated that he would talk to Yuri, because it was Yuri who was driving the last time. Gov't Ex. 106T at 5 (emphasis added). In another call that evening, Valentin told DeArmas that he was putting Bonitillo on the telephone to discuss the meeting site. Gov't Ex. 107T at 16. The monitoring interpreter, who had an opportunity to listen to a voice exemplar given by Garcia, identified Garcia as the person next heard on the recording agreeing to meet DeArmas at the place where we went that time. Id. 3 12 Case agent Paul Klemick of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) testified that, at the appointed time, he and other law enforcement officials surveilled the meeting site, which was in the vicinity of the Clearview Expressway and Union Turnpike in Queens, New York. There, Klemick spotted a parked Toyota Camry registered to DeArmas's home address. He further observed two men in a blue Jeep registered to Sophia Toribio, Garcia's common-law wife, at the same address as that on a New York State driver's license in the name of Yuri Garcia. For a brief time, agents followed the Jeep, but soon after the vehicle began to engage in evasive action, they abandoned the endeavor. Trial Tr. at 114. 13 Nevertheless, a telephone conversation intercepted shortly after midnight on March 19, 2002, revealed that the planned drug exchange had, in fact, occurred, but not to the satisfaction of the defendants. Valentin was intercepted telling DeArmas, I am waiting for, eh . . . `Bonitillo' is opening one of them. Gov't Ex. 108T at 2. A few seconds later, Valentin reported that the cocaine was like chalk and asked DeArmas, How can that be? Id. at 3. Valentin was then overheard stating to someone in the background, Yuri, open up another one, so we can take a look, immediately after which Garcia replied, This is no good. Id. at 3-4. As Valentin and DeArmas quarrelled, the former stated, Yuri is now opening another package. Id. at 5. A moment later Garcia pronounced, This one is even uglier. Id. at 6. 14 In a series of calls on the evening of March 19, 2002, DeArmas, Valentin, and Garcia planned a meeting to discuss the bad batch of cocaine. Initially, Garcia urged DeArmas to meet him in the Bronx, only to change the site in a subsequent call to Dyckman Street off the Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan. 15 Agent Klemick testified that, at the latter site, he saw both the blue Jeep registered to Sophia Toribio and DeArmas's Toyota. Police Detective Ronald_Nicastro, also part of the surveillance team, testified that he was able to observe the driver of the Jeep and, based on a license photograph obtained from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, identified him as Yuri Garcia. Authorities followed both cars to 525 Riverdale Avenue in the Bronx, a location that Tejada identified at trial as Valentin's and Garcia's stash house. There, Nicastro saw Garcia and DeArmas enter the building. 16 The following day, March 20, 2002, Garcia and DeArmas were intercepted discussing the return of the unsatisfactory cocaine. Garcia indicated that he would arrange for Negro—which Tejada testified was a name by which he was sometimes called, see Trial Tr. at 20—to deliver the drugs. Gov't Ex. 112T at 3. In a subsequent conversation, intercepted shortly after 7:00 p.m., DeArmas and Garcia expressed concern that the delivery had not proceeded as planned: 17 DeArmas: What's happened? 18 Garcia: I don't know yet. 19 DeArmas: Where are you? 20 Garcia: I'm up here already. 21 DeArmas: Should we go up there, to see if maybe the man arrived, and left the stuff there or something? 22 Garcia: No, I don't want to take that risk of going inside there. 23 DeArmas: But we have to find out what's going on somehow, right? 24 Garcia: Yes, we have to find out what's going on .... 25 Gov't Ex. 113T at 1-2. 26 What had happened, of course, was that agents had arrested Tejada in possession of ten kilograms of cocaine outside DeArmas's stash house on East 72nd Street in Manhattan. Later that night, Garcia and DeArmas were overheard discussing Tejada's arrest and the need to secure legal representation for him. See Gov't Ex. 114T. 27 Thereafter, relations among the conspirators grew strained as DeArmas pressed Garcia and Valentin for payment owed on previous drug deals, while Garcia and Valentin complained about the financial problems resulting from the March 20, 2002 seizure. In a May 2, 2002 conversation, Garcia and Valentin computed their debt to DeArmas as $81,000. On May 5, 2002, Garcia proposed to DeArmas that they meet the following day to discuss this obligation. In anticipation of this meeting, on May 6, 2002, Garcia and Valentin discussed making a partial payment of $9,000 to DeArmas, with Garcia promising Valentin that he would bring the papers, the list to the meeting. Gov't Ex. 126T at 2. 28
29 Det. Nicastro and other agents surveilled Garcia on May 6, 2002, observing him pick up Valentin first and then DeArmas. Soon thereafter, law enforcement authorities arrested the three men. From the van in which the trio was traveling, officers seized $9,000 in cash; a cellular telephone that had been used to place some of the intercepted calls; and, after a subsequent, more thorough search, drug records detailing an $81,000 indebtedness.
30 Preliminary to presenting the above-described evidence for jury review, 4 the government elicited background and opinion testimony from Agent Klemick, some of which is challenged on this appeal. Without objection, Klemick, as one of two case agents, testified briefly to certain techniques used by law enforcement officials in the investigation of the charged conspiracy, specifically, wiretaps, surveillance, cooperator debriefings, and review of law enforcement databases. See Trial Tr. at 92. The prosecution then asked Klemick if, based on your investigation, he could identify certain persons. Id. at 95. Beginning with Walmer DeArmas, Klemick testified, without objection, that [w]e identified [him] as one of Gabriel Herrera's sources of supply for cocaine. Id. In response to a similar inquiry regarding Francisco Valentin, Klemick stated that [h]e was a partner of Walmer DeArmas and of Yuri Garcia in the drug conspiracy. Id. at 96. A defense objection to the characterization was sustained, and the response stricken from the record. Id. When the question was rephrased, however, and a response given that omitted specific reference to Garcia, the court overruled a defense objection to the agent offering conclusory testimony: 31 Q: Based on your investigation, who or what role was played by Francisco Valentin? 32 A: Francisco Valentin was basically a partner with Walmer DeArmas who supplied cocaine to DeArmas. 33 Q: And how were you able to determine this? 34 A: Through intercepted — 35 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, again, I would just object to the conclusion. I mean, that's— 36 [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, the question is phrased in terms of based on their investigative work. It is the conclusion that the agent reached in the course of his investigation. 37 THE COURT: Overruled. 38 Q: How were you able to determine this? 39 A: Through intercepted phone conversations and research of law enforcement database and surveillance. 40 Id. at 96-97. 41 The prosecution then proceeded to ask Klemick to testify specifically as to Garcia's role, prompting an objection, a rephrasing of the question by the court, and the response challenged on this appeal: 42 Q: In the course of your investigation, were you able to determine what role, if any, Yuri Garcia played in the organization? 43 A: Yes. 44 Q: And what role did he play based on your investigation? 45 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor, as to role. If the question is: What did he see? What did he do? That's one thing, but when it talks about role, it opens up a whole other— 46 THE COURT: As far as you could determine, what did he do? 47 Q: That was the question. 48 A: As far as our investigation determined, he was a partner with Francisco Valentin in receiving cocaine from Walmer DeArmas and he also helped to test the cocaine to make sure that it was a quality product. 49 Id. at 97-98 (emphasis added). 50 Klemick subsequently testified, without objection, to a further conclusion reached by him in the course of the conspiracy investigation, specifically, the identity of a person referred to by Valentin in an intercepted call as Bonitillo. Klemick stated that, based on intercepted phone calls, through surveillance and through interviews of cooperating witnesses, he was able to identify Bonitillo as [t]he defendant, Yuri Garcia. Id. at 103. When asked if [b]ased on your participation in the investigation, he had an understanding of the role of Alejandro Tejada, Klemick testified, again without objection, that Tejada transported drugs. Id. at 106.