Opinion ID: 216984
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Jose Aranda-Meza

Text: The jury also heard that Vazquez-Villa indirectly threatened Jose ArandaMeza, a governmental witness and one of Vazquez-Villa’s close acquaintances. Aranda-Meza testified that, while in jail, an unidentified inmate told him Vazquez-Villa knew Aranda-Meza was “talking.” R., Vol. IV at 460. In response, Aranda-Meza said he “had not talked yet” and called the inmate’s suggestion “a lie.” Id. The inmate then remarked, “You know how this is.” Id. Aranda-Meza interpreted this as a threat, even though he did not know the identity of the person issuing the threat or the threat-maker’s relationship to Vazquez-Villa. Nothing the inmate said directly connected the threat to VazquezVilla, and further, it is was not clear from Aranda-Meza’s testimony whether the exchange unequivocally constituted a threat. Aranda-Meza acknowledged on the stand that the inmate did not threaten violence. Even if the district court ‘s decision to admit this testimony was erroneous, the testimony did not affect the outcome of the trial. Under the third prong of the plain error standard, a defendant must show the error prejudices “substantial -9- rights” by affecting the outcome of the district court proceedings. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1124. The record here demonstrates Aranda-Meza’s threat-related testimony was, at most, a marginal aspect of the government’s case, and in any event it did not send a clear message to the jury that Vazquez-Villa threatened a prosecution witness. It suggested only that Aranda-Meza had some fear of reprisal for his testimony. Vazquez-Villa himself acknowledges ArandaMeza testified in a “convoluted fashion,” and it is plain the jury would have had to make a significant inferential leap before concluding Vazquez-Villa threatened Aranda-Meza. See Aplt. Br. at 21. Most importantly, any improper inference the jury may have drawn from the testimony was rendered inconsequential by the overwhelming evidence inculpating Vazquez-Villa—including the detailed testimony of many prosecution witnesses, recordings of wiretapped conversations, and physical evidence seized from Vazquez-Villa’s property. As a result, Vazquez-Villa suffered no prejudice from Aranda-Meza’s testimony. Finally, it is clear from the record that Aranda-Meza’s testimony did not prejudice the district court’s sentencing decision. In sentencing Vazquez-Villa, the district court explicitly disregarded testimony regarding threats to witnesses, and it applied a significant downward variance. For these reasons, Vazquez-Villa has not shown the district court committed plain error. -10-