Opinion ID: 52760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ismael ayala

Text: Ismael Ayala contends that the district court erred by instructing potential jury members during voir dire that they would need to pay close attention during the trial because the trial transcript would “not be available . . . for use during deliberations . . . .” The case law of this circuit grants broad discretion to district court to decide what access, if any, the jury will have to trial transcripts. See United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357, 1370 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Loyd, 743 F.2d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir. 1984). The jury in this case never asked to have any portion of the transcript read back to them, and Ayala presents no arguments on appeal that persuade us that his substantial rights were violated by the district court’s instruction. If anything, the district court’s instruction probably prompted the jury to pay closer attention to the testimony at trial. Ayala’s second contention is that the government made an improper comment to the jury during its rebuttal closing argument. The attorney for the government made the comment after the defense counsel had admonished the jurors to consider the fact that the government had presented no videotape 10 evidence of drug activities at the warehouse on 15th Street. The responding comment was as follows: Mr. Brown wanted to, you know, again bring up this camera business and suggest to you it was outrageous for the Government to say we couldn’t go on anybody’s private property and put up a video camera. Well, there’s this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. I don’t think any one of us would be very happy if the Government snuck onto our property without our permission. Ismael Ayala now argues that the government’s invocation of the Fourth Amendment (1) invited the jurors to make decisions in the context of their own rights and privileges and not those of the defendants; (2) invited the jurors to decide the case on grounds other than the evidence and the law; and (3) attempted to shift the jurors’ emphasis away from the evidence and toward emotion by “relating defense arguments to the jurors’ own property interests.” To reverse a jury’s verdict because of a prosecutor’s improper remarks during closing arguments, the challenged remarks must (1) be improper and (2) prejudice a substantial right of the defendant. United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1353 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the prosecutor’s remarks were not improper, because she was entitled to respond to issues raised by the defense’s closing argument, see United States v. Alejandro, 118 F.3d 1518, 1524 (11th Cir. 1997), and her response was a legitimate one. 11 Ismael Ayala’s third contention is that the district court committed plain error by giving the following jury instruction: While you are discussing the case do not hesitate to reexamine your own opinion and change your mind if you become convinced that you were wrong. But do not give up your honest beliefs solely because the others think differently or merely to get the case over with. Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. Ismael Ayala now contends that the district court’s “seek the truth” instruction clouded the jury’s ability to follow the district court’s instruction on reasonable doubt. He argues that “[c]learly, the standard of reasonable doubt is quite different from the very amorphous standard of seeking the truth.” Because Ayala did not object to the instruction at trial, our review is only for plain error. Williams, 445 F.3d at 1307. And there was none here. With the exception of the final sentence of it, we already have affirmed the constitutionality of this pattern jury instruction. See United States v. Brokemond, 959 F.2d 206, 209 (11th Cir. 1992). We are not persuaded that the supplemental instruction’s admonition to “seek the truth” undermined the jury’s understanding of the district court’s instruction on reasonable doubt. Even if there were error, it is not plain. Ayala’s fourth and final contention is that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on his use of firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy and his leadership role in the conspiracy. According to Ismael Ayala, 12 those enhancements were improper because the facts upon which they were based were not found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Therefore, Ismael argues that the district court engaged in the type of unconstitutional, post-verdict judicial factfinding prohibited under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). This contention is foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2005). Ismael Ayala’s conviction and sentence are due to be affirmed.