Opinion ID: 203873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Roles in the conspiracy

Text: The most troubling part of Agent Toro's testimony involved his conclusions about the roles of the defendants in the conspiracy. He essentially testified that each of the defendants was guilty of the conspiracy charged. Casas, 356 F.3d at 119. Over defendants' objection, and upon receiving the AUSA's assurance that subsequent witnesses would also testify as to the respective roles of the co-conspirators, the court allowed Toro to identify by name and role in the drug conspiracy twenty-five individuals (including appellants) who, during the course of the video surveillance, had been involved in drug distribution activities in Covadonga. Toro then circled the three defendants' pictures on a chart that contained the names and photographs of these twenty-five alleged co-conspirators (the photographs were apparently screen captures from the videos), stating that Flores-de-Jesús and Sabino Morales were both sellers and runners, and that Feliciano was a seller. The government concedes that this testimony  identifying the names and roles of the conspiracy members with the use of the accompanying chart  was precisely the type of testimony we condemned in Casas. This concession was unavoidable. Toro stated that he had been able to identify the names and roles of the individuals on the chart using the surveillance videotapes, information from the company that managed the housing project, reports from the Puerto Rico police, and information obtained from CI Espada. This testimony was not based on Agent Toro's personal knowledge. [7] Most of it was based on inadmissible hearsay. For example, Toro stated that some of his testimony was based on information gleaned from interviews with CI Espada. It is true that defense counsel later had a chance to cross-examine Espada. [8] The fact that Espada confirmed much of Toro's testimony with respect to the roles of the various defendants is certainly relevant to the harmless error analysis. Moreover, this confrontation ensures that there is no Crawford problem with this aspect of Agent Toro's testimony. Nevertheless, even if corroborated, the portion of Toro's role testimony that was based on Espada's statements was still hearsay and squarely raises the imprimatur issue discussed above. Moreover, neither Espada nor any other witness corroborated all of Toro's testimony about each co-conspirator and his role. Finally, to the extent that Toro's role testimony was based on police reports and information from the manager of the housing project that were never admitted into evidence, it was improper yet again on hearsay grounds. [9]