Opinion ID: 3058601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grajales’s Testimony

Text: In his defense, Grajales elected to testify at trial. From the start of his testimony, there was some question over whether the district court would allow 6 Grajales to testify to statements made to him by the CI that allegedly induced his participation in the scheme. When defense counsel asked Grajales what the CI told him to compel his involvement, the government objected on hearsay grounds. Defense counsel explained that the statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show what Grajales believed. The court initially overruled the objection but then held a side-bar discussion. After the government argued that Grajales could be asked what he believed but not what someone else told him, the court sustained the objection and directed counsel to rephrase the question. Grajales then explained his relationship with the CI. He testified that he knew the CI for almost four years. Beginning in May 2009, the CI repeatedly approached Grajales and attempted to enlist his involvement in various robberies and burglaries. However, Grajales testified that he repeatedly declined to participate. Grajales further testified that, on September 30, 2009, the CI approached Grajales again and explained to him that he had avoided a ten-year sentence for drug trafficking and was released from prison after a year because he cooperated with the government. The CI further explained that he decided to work as a paid informant for the police. Grajales then asked the CI to introduce him to the police 7 officers. Following this testimony, the government asked for a side-bar. At the side-bar conference, the government argued that this testimony went to a public authority defense, and the defendant had not notified the government of such a defense. Defense counsel responded that the testimony was relevant to the entrapment defense, as well as to whether Grajales had the intent to commit the crime. After further discussion, the district court instructed the jury that Grajales was not authorized to work on behalf of law enforcement. Grajales’s testimony resumed, and he continued to attempt to explain that he knew about the sting operation. However, the government objected to testimony by Grajales involving statements made to him by the CI regarding why the CI would not take him to meet with law enforcement; what was said to Grajales to compel his involvement after the CI declined to introduce him to law enforcement; the guarantee made to Grajales by the CI that nothing would happen to him; and the conversation Grajales had with the CI regarding the CI allegedly requesting that Barrera-Avila participate in the robbery. The district court sustained the government’s objections, and disallowed Grajales to testify on these issues. Despite the court sustaining the government’s objections, Grajales managed to explain that the CI told him that he could not meet with the police because the CI was not yet working with them directly, and therefore the CI swore 8 on photographs of his own children as a guarantee that nothing would happen to Grajales. Further, although he was prevented from testifying to what the CI told him to compel his involvement after the CI declined to introduce him to law enforcement, Grajales did testify to what he believed. Grajales testified that he believed the CI had only served one year of his ten-year sentence, and therefore he believed the CI was working for law enforcement. Finally, while Grajales was excluded from testifying to his conversation with the CI regarding Barrera-Avila’s participation, he did testify that it was the CI’s idea to involve Barrera-Avila. Subsequently, Grajales testified about how he learned about the operation and his reasons for participating in it. Grajales testified that the CI informed him that Sanchez was a police officer and that he should play along with the scenario Sanchez presented. Grajales believed that, if law enforcement learned that he knew about the operation, the operation would fail. Additionally, he participated in the operation because he wanted to help the CI, and he believed that BarreraAvila had previously set fire to two of his cars. Grajales then testified to his thoughts after conversations he had with the CI that were not recorded. Grajales thought that no actual cocaine would be involved and that he would not be arrested. He thought that, when he and the CI were arrested, the CI would explain to law enforcement Grajales’s involvement. 9 However, the district court sustained the government’s hearsay objections to defense counsel’s attempts to ask Grajales whether he: (1) tried to explain his arrangement with the CI to the police when he was arrested; (2) told the police to get cameras from his home, which he allegedly set up because he believed it would help him to confirm that he was working with police; and (3) asked the police to bring the CI into the interrogation room after Grajales was arrested. At the end of Grajales’s testimony, he explained that he knew there were no drugs, but asked questions because he had to play along. Grajales maintained that his phone calls to the other participants were part of the ruse. He further avowed that, before the CI contacted him, he had never wanted to commit a home invasion robbery, possess cocaine, or distribute cocaine. The CI asked him countless times, and he told him no every time he asked.