Opinion ID: 799956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Agent Carpio and Officer Meulenberg

Text: In a quite different claim of error, Valdivia relies on several of our recent cases to assert that various statements from witnesses Carpio and Meulenberg amounted to improper overview testimony. See, e.g., United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir.2011); United States v. Flores-De-Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.2009); United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004). Because the argument was not preserved below, we review it now through the lens of plain error. [10] See United States v. Andújar-Basco, 488 F.3d 549, 554 (1st Cir.2007). To prevail under this standard, the appellant must demonstrate that there was a clear or obvious error that seriously affected not only his substantial rights, but also the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. In its problematic form, overview testimony comprises declarations by a witnessmost commonly a law enforcement officer involved in the relevant investigationpresented in the early phases of a criminal trial to describe the government's general theory of the case. See United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 665 F.3d 351, 356 (1st Cir.2011); Meises, 645 F.3d at 14 n. 13 (noting that such evidence often provides an anticipatory summary of the prosecution's case by previewing the testimony of other witnesses). Because the witness is, in essence, testifying about the results of a criminal investigation before the government has presented any evidenceoften including aspects of the investigation in which he did not actually participatewe have repeatedly admonished the use of such testimony. United States v. Rosado-Pérez, 605 F.3d 48, 55 (1st Cir.2010). Specifically, we have cautioned that the evidence promised by the overview witness [might] never materialize[], and that even if it does, the testimony still represents a problematic endorsement of the veracity of the testimony that will follow. Vázquez-Rivera, 665 F.3d at 356 (internal citation omitted). Although the questionable use of overview witnesses has become something of a troubling trend, see Flores-De-Jesús, 569 F.3d at 17, the declarations at issue here are largely distinguishable from those that we have previously considered problematic. On the second day of trial, Agent Carpio testified that De Sousa was bringing drugs into the island of Aruba for further distribution into different areas in the Caribbean, including the United States, Puerto Rico, and Europe, and was smuggling the proceeds ... back [to] Aruba. In a similar vein, halfway through trial, Officer Meulenberg testified that he was the leader of the group that... investigat[ed] a group of persons led by [De Sousa], and explained that [De Sousa] was ... buying drugs in Colombia and Venezuela and selling drugs, not only to the local market but to the American... and European market[s]. He also testified that the potential involvement of an airport security guard, a cruise-ship official, and a police officer in the suspected criminal activities was a major impetus for the investigation. Unlike prior cases where we have criticized the use of overview witnesses, the prosecution here laid a sufficient foundation that both Meulenberg and Carpio had personal knowledge of the alleged conspiracy. Officer Meulenberg testified that he led the Aruban investigation of drug activity involving De Sousa, assisted in preparing the report submitted to obtain the Aruban wiretap, participated in wiretap surveillance, and conducted the arrests and home searches of several of the conspiracy's participants, including De Sousa. Similarly, Carpio testified that he was the American liaison to the Aruban investigation, that he reviewed the wiretap recordings and pertinent telephone records, which were ultimately entered into evidence, and that he had conducted his own independent investigation of Valdivia's role in De Sousa's activities. Thus, far from being a scripted overview of the government's case by uninvolved agents, the testimony represented the fruits of first-hand police work. See Rosado-Pérez, 605 F.3d at 55-56 (concluding that the prosecution had laid a sufficient foundation of personal knowledge where the testifying agent was the lead investigator ... and ... participated in video and personal surveillance, wiretap surveillance, and controlled drug buys). To the extent that Carpio and Meulenberg described the cast of characters as an organization or groupa characterization, as we have noted, to which the appellant did not objectany misstep was heavily outweighed by the substantial evidence of the appellant's guilt, which included wiretap recordings, phone records, and co-conspirator testimony, among other things. See, e.g., Flores-De-Jesús, 569 F.3d at 27-31 (finding the use of overview testimony ameliorated in part by the substantial evidence of defendant's guilt). As such, we find that the admission of this testimony was not plainly erroneous.