Opinion ID: 743614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Questioning concerning arson at a nightclub owned by Aguilera and Iturralde

Text: 145 Finally, Aguilera and Iturralde argue that they were prejudiced by a series of questions asked by the prosecution concerning an arson at Alamedas Casino, a Chicago nightclub they co-owned. On February 26, 1994, while Aguilera was in Mexico, the nightclub, which was insured for $2 million, was destroyed in a fire. Counsel for Aguilera, during opening argument, suggested that the government witness Tutuianu, who worked at the Alamedas Casino, was responsible for the fire. Tutuianu is the individual who introduced Agent Perez to Aguilera. Agent Perez was working undercover on the narcotics investigation by posing as a person interested in shipping cocaine. At trial, the government's lawyer questioned Perez about the conversations Perez had engaged in with Aguilera pertaining to the fire at the Alamedas Casino. During redirect, the following exchange transpired between the prosecutor and Agent Perez: 146 [The Government]: [Counsel for Aguilera] talked to you about the financial problems of Mr. Aguilera.... 147 ....[The Government]: Mr. Aguilera says to you ... Because it's insured for $2 million? 148 [Agent Perez]: Right. 149 [The Government]: What did you understand him to be talking about? 150 [Agent Perez]: He is talking about $2 million, that the club was insured for $2 million. That means if it would burn, I guess he would get something close to that. 151 [The Government]: That was money that he was going to receive? 152 [Agent Perez]: Right. 153 [The Government]: $2 million? 154 [Agent Perez]: At least he had insurance for that much. 155 [The Government]: What is the asking price of the casino when he mentioned that he wanted to sell it to you? 156 [Agent Perez]: 1.75, I think it is. $1,750,000. 157 [The Government]: So there was about $300,000 plus difference between what he offered to sell the casino to you-- 158 [Counsel for Aguilera]: Judge, objection to these questions. He is asking about the conversation. 159 [The Court]: Let him finish the question. What's the question? 160 [The Government]: There is about $300,000 plus difference between what he offered to sell you the casino for and what he subsequently told you he was going to receive from the insurance proceeds? 161 [Counsel for Aguilera]: Objection. 162 [The Court]: Sustained. 163 (Tr. at 1652-53.) Aguilera and Iturralde now argue that they were prejudiced by this line of questioning, since it amounted to nothing more than an attempt to get the jury to convict [Aguilera and Iturralde] for being criminals or simply bad people. Aguilera and Iturralde claim that the questions asked of Agent Perez planted the inference in the jury's minds that they deliberately had the Alamedas Casino burned down in order to collect insurance proceeds. The government responds that the questions asked of Perez were an invited response to the implication and inference previously created by defense counsel that government witness Tutuianu was responsible for the fire. 164 Under the 'invited response' doctrine, if defense counsel strikes the first blow, we will not necessarily reverse a conviction if the prosecutor attempts to even the scales by making a reasonable but otherwise improper response. United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1305 (7th Cir.1995). [T]he issue on appeal is 'whether the prosecutor's invited response, taken in context, unfairly prejudiced the defendant.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044-45, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). 165 Initially we note that, to the extent that the questioning at issue was improper at all, it was indeed an invited response to the insinuation by counsel for Aguilera that government witness Tutuianu was responsible for the fire. For example, at opening argument, Aguilera's counsel stated: 166 [While Aguilera] is in Mexico ... [and] George Tut[u]ianu, the security chief's around [in Chicago], a fire happens at the Alamedas Casino ... I will ask you to consider how maybe that fire got started while [Aguilera] is in Mexico and Mr. Tut[u]ianu is here in Chicago. 167 (Tr. at 56.) Further, during his cross-examination of Agent Perez, counsel for Aguilera repeatedly asked Perez whether he knew who started the fire, further suggesting that Tutuianu, who was working with Perez, had committed the arson. Indeed, given that Aguilera's defense was based on the theory that he had been entrapped, certain of the defense lawyer's questions appear to go so far as to imply that Perez himself was involved in the fire: 168 Q: [Aguilera] says, Let's hope they don't take too long in fixing up all this. He is talking about the Alamedas Casino, isn't he? 169 A: Right, sir. 170 Q: Then ... he says, But it's damaged now and I had a lot of events, a lot of good events? 171 A: Uh-huh. 172 Q: Then you say, Yeah. And he says, So it affects me a lot?A: Right. 173 Q: He is talking--when he is talking about a lot of events he is talking about entertainment concerts and things that were going to be at the Alamedas Casino. That's your understanding, isn't it? 174 A: Right, sir. 175 .... 176 Q: Then ... he is saying that, I'm looking for places right now so that I can organize some good dances. 177 ... 178 A: ... But he also says ... Of course. We're going to take a little time, but we can work there just fine. In other words, that was my concern, and he assured me that-- 179 Q: It was your concern? 180 A: Well, if the building is burned down, I mean you got to figure that it's a setback. 181 Q: Well, you know it's a setback for Mr. Aguilera, don't you? 182 A: Right. 183 Q: And you know there is going to be pressure on him, don't you? 184 A: It's a setback for anybody. 185 Q: You know that that's going to put on pressure for him to maybe try to make a cocaine deal or try to launder money, don't you? 186 A: Right, sir. 187 Q: You don't know who started that fire, right? 188 A: I don't have no [sic] idea. 189 (Tr. at 1618-20 (emphasis added).) 190 Considered in light of the insinuations by counsel for Aguilera that Tutuianu, or possibly even Perez, may have started the fire at the Alamedas Casino in order to pressure Aguilera into becoming involved in drug trafficking, Defendants can hardly now claim prejudice from the government's attempt to rebut on redirect the inference created during the cross-examination of Perez by defense counsel just minutes earlier. During his conversation with Agent Perez, Aguilera admitted his past involvement in both money laundering and narcotics trafficking. Perez was on the stand for a full day, and he testified regarding numerous conversations he had with Aguilera concerning money laundering and drug trafficking. Taken in this context, we fail to see how the very brief questioning and invited response concerning the fire at the Alamedas Casino could have possibly caused prejudice to Aguilera or Iturralde. 191 Further, the jury was instructed both before and after trial to consider only the evidence presented and disregard any evidence to which [the judge] sustained an objection or which [the judge] ordered stricken. Counsel for Aguilera's objection to the questions was sustained (though he never asked that the judge strike any of Perez's testimony). Aguilera and Iturralde offer no reason to question that this instruction would sufficiently alert jurors not to give any weight to the interrogatories asked of Agent Perez by the government's lawyers concerning the approximate $300,000 Aguilera stood to gain from insurance proceeds. Juries are presumed to follow the judge's instructions, and we simply fail to see how this question could have had any impact on their verdicts. See United States v. Bell, 980 F.2d 1095, 1098 (7th Cir.1992) (where objection to answer was sustained, and jury was instructed to consider only evidence presented, no prejudice to defendant occurred); United States v. Olson, 978 F.2d 1472, 1480-81 (7th Cir.1992) (objection to prosecutor's question sustained before answer did not prejudice defendant). We therefore disagree with Defendants contention that there is any basis for reversal on this issue. 192