Opinion ID: 2829735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Drug Quantity Instruction

Text: The district court based its sentences on the jury's finding that more than five kilograms of cocaine were involved in the conspiracy. Consequently, the court sentenced Paz and Marrero under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which mandates a sentence of ten years to life when five kilograms or more of cocaine are involved in the conspiracy. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum or maximum sentence must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Alleyne v. United States, 133. S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013) (minimum); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (maximum). Paz and Marrero argue that the district court failed to instruct the jury that the drug amount had to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they assert, there was no proper finding on drug quantity, and they should have been sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), which provides a sentencing range of zero to twenty years when drug quantity is not determined. We conclude there was no error in the court's instructions as rendered.9 Here, the court began its instructions with a full explanation of the reasonable doubt standard, the government's 9Although Marrero concedes our review of this issue is for plain error, Paz contends the issue was preserved below because a relevant requested jury instruction was discussed and rejected in the trial judge's chambers. The defendants' claim fails under any standard of review. - 13 - burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a defendant's right to rely on the government's failure to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any element of a crime charged against him. Later in its instructions, the court discussed the indictment, which charged the defendants with participating in a conspiracy involving more than five kilograms of cocaine. The court did not specifically refer to drug quantity at that point, but explained that the indictment is simply an accusation and that the [g]overnment has to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, explaining the elements of conspiracy, the court reiterated, the [g]overnment must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those involved shared a general understanding about the crime. Continuing to discuss the elements of conspiracy, the court stated: You need not find that a defendant agreed specifically to or knew about all the details of the crime . . . . But the [g]overnment must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the essential features and general aims of the criminal venture. With the elements of conspiracy explained, the court then discussed jury deliberation procedures: selection of a foreperson, the requirement that the verdict be unanimous, each juror's duty to decide the matter for him- or herself, and the need to examine and reexamine one's position while maintaining - 14 - one's honest convictions. The court then discussed the verdict form: The verdict form that you will use is this one that I have prepared. Very simple form. It talks about Count I and Count II, and simply asks you whether you find Mr. Paz and Mr. Marrero guilty or not guilty as charged. I am also asking you another question. How much cocaine is involved in this conspiracy? That's the question, and the answer must be one of these two. More than five kilos of cocaine, or less than five kilos of cocaine. I don't want you to give me a specific. I just want you to tell me whether it's more than five or less than five. That's all. According to Paz and Marrero, the district court's error was twofold: first, it did not include drug quantity in its discussion of the elements of conspiracy, and, second, it did not reiterate the reasonable doubt standard in its discussion of the verdict form, when the court asked the jury to determine drug quantity. This approach, they contend, permitted the jury to find drug quantity by a less stringent standard, thus violating their Fifth Amendment right to Due Process and their Sixth Amendment right to a jury verdict governed by the reasonable doubt standard.10 10 See Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993) (It is self-evident, we think, that the Fifth Amendment requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the Sixth Amendment requirement of a jury verdict are interrelated.). - 15 - We review the instructions as a whole, not piecemeal. United States v. Melendez, 775 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2014); Gonzalez, 570 F.3d at 21. Assessing whether the jury was properly charged with the reasonable doubt standard, the proper inquiry is not whether the instruction 'could have' been applied in an unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so apply it. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994). We acknowledge that the instructions might have been better if the court had discussed drug quantity alongside the other elements of the crime, or if the court had reiterated the reasonable doubt standard when it instructed the jury to make a finding on drug quantity. Nevertheless, the court repeatedly emphasized the reasonable doubt standard throughout the instructions. The drug quantity determination was then grouped together with the court's explanation that the jury would be asked to determine whether the defendants were guilty of conspiracy, a determination that the instructions made unequivocally subject to the reasonable doubt standard. Furthermore, the jury had a copy of the indictment during its deliberations, and the court emphasized that the accusations in the indictment, which included an accusation that the conspiracy involved more than five kilograms, had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, we do not think that there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury - 16 - understood the instructions to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the charged offense, including drug quantity. Contrary to Paz and Marrero's assertion, this case is distinguishable from United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014). In Delgado, the court instructed the jury on the elements of conspiracy, but did not ask the jury to make a finding as to the quantity of drugs involved. Id. at 183. After the jury deliberated and returned a guilty verdict, the court sent the jury back for a second deliberation to determine drug quantity, stating, It's like another deliberation under the same terms and conditions. Id. On appeal, the government argued that the district court's same terms and conditions instruction was sufficient to convey to the jury that the reasonable doubt standard still applied. Id. at 187. However, in large measure because the jury had already returned a verdict before being asked to deliberate a second time, we held that instructional error had occurred. [G]iven the timing and manner in which the question was presented, the jurors understandably may have failed to appreciate that the additional question represented something more than an inconsequential afterthought . . . . Id. The facts here differ significantly from those in Delgado. The finding on drug quantity was made as part of the original deliberations, not following an initial verdict during - 17 - resumed deliberations. Drug quantity was also included on the same verdict form as that used to determine the defendants' guilt or innocence on the substantive charges. We do not think there is a reasonable likelihood, Victor, 511 U.S. at 6, that a juror in this case would have understood the instructions to permit the application of anything other than the reasonable doubt standard to the assessment of drug quantity. Therefore, the court did not fail to charge the jury with the reasonable doubt standard on an element that increased the mandatory minimum or maximum sentences.