Opinion ID: 550091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenged Rulings and Actions of the District Court

Text: A. Alleged Hearsay Testimony by Akiva 34 Both defendants challenge as inadmissible hearsay two statements allegedly made by them to which Akiva testified: Osario-Serna's comment at the diner that Roldan-Zapata was El Jefe and Roldan-Zapata's statement to Akiva at the MCC that he would help Akiva obtain a lawyer and the government had no case against them if Akiva kept silent. Both were properly admitted. 35 Osario-Serna's reference to Roldan-Zapata as El Jefe was both relevant to disputed factual issues and admissible against each defendant as nonhearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) and (E)--against Osario-Serna as the statement of a party and against Roldan-Zapata as a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement furthered the conspiracy's purposes by informing Akiva of the identity and role of Roldan-Zapata and reassuring him to proceed with the transaction in the presence of someone with whom he was not familiar. See United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 515, 107 L.Ed.2d 516 (1989); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 36-37 (2d Cir.1987). It was probative of defendants' roles in the conspiracy and of Osario-Serna's knowledge. Further, its admission caused no unfair prejudice. 36 Roldan-Zapata's statements to Akiva at the MCC were also admissible against both defendants. Roldan-Zapata's offer to get a lawyer for Akiva is probative of their joint endeavor and his leadership role. His statement that the government would have no case if Akiva did not talk is an apparent attempt to suppress evidence of the crime and is plainly relevant to show Roldan-Zapata's consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Adegbite, 877 F.2d 174, 180 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 370, 107 L.Ed.2d 356 (1989). Roldan-Zapata's claims that he never actually made the latter statement, or that he never actually got the attorney, were for the jury to weigh and do not affect admissibility. The statements were admissible against Roldan-Zapata as statements of a party and against Osario-Serna as statements of a co-conspirator. See Rule 801(d)(2)(A) & (E). The jury could infer that they were in furtherance of the common objective of preventing the convictions of both defendants. Co-conspirator statements may include attempts to cover up an ongoing conspiracy after the participants have been arrested. See United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 130 (2d Cir.1989). 37 B. Evidence of Osario-Serna's Previous Cocaine Transactions 38 Akiva testified to his previous cocaine transactions with Osario-Serna, which the defendant challenges as inadmissible evidence of uncharged prior similar acts. Akiva testified that to help pay off a debt to his dealer in Miami, he had twice agreed to deliver packages of cocaine received from Osario-Serna and was to receive an additional credit for delivering the cocaine received on March 10. Akiva also described one of the prior drug deals where both he and Osario-Serna were present. Osario-Serna claims that this evidence was impermissibly elicited for the purpose of showing his propensity to commit such crimes, in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), and, further, that its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in violation of Rule 403. We reject both claims. 39 Rule 404(b) allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to be admitted for purposes other than showing a propensity to act in a certain manner, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Under the inclusionary approach to the rule followed by this circuit, such evidence is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity. United States v. Harris, 733 F.2d 994, 1006 (2d Cir.1984). 40 Here, the prior act evidence was admissible to inform the jury of the background of the conspiracy charged, id., to complete the story of the crimes charged, United States v. Brennan, 798 F.2d 581, 589 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1750, 104 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989), and to help[ ] explain to the jury how the illegal relationship between [participants in the crime] developed, id. at 590. The pre-existing drug-trafficking relationship between Akiva and Osario-Serna furthered the jury's understanding of how the instant transaction came about and their role in it. This evidence, which represented only a tiny fraction of the testimony heard by the jury, and did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which Osario-Serna was charged, see United States v. Siegel, 717 F.2d 9, 16-17 (2d Cir.1983), did not unfairly prejudice Osario-Serna so as to warrant exclusion under Rule 403. 41 C. Guzman's Testimony Regarding Items in the Apartment 42 Osario-Serna also objects to Agent Guzman's expert testimony regarding the drug-related nature of the shoe boxes, ledger book, revolver, and other items seized from the defendant's apartment. He claims that Guzman was not qualified as an expert, and that his testimony constituted improper other act evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Both grounds are without merit. 43 Agent Guzman was properly allowed to testify as a fully qualified expert on narcotics trafficking. As a DEA Intelligence Research Specialist assigned to the New York area, his job included acquiring information about narcotics operations. As a veteran New York City Police detective, he spent sixteen years assigned to the Drug Enforcement Task Force. During his career he participated in thousands of narcotics investigations, frequently undercover, and testified as an expert in hundreds of cases. Agent Guzman was qualified to testify regarding the narcotics-related nature of the items found in Osario-Serna's apartment, as well as drug trafficking techniques generally, both proper subjects for expert testimony. See United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 616-18 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 543, 107 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). 44 Agent Guzman's testimony about the items seized from Osario-Serna's apartment was also proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as relevant to issues in this case. Even though the narcotics records and other paraphernalia found in Osario-Serna's apartment might have related to other uncharged offenses, and may not have been specifically used for the March 10 transaction, the jury could infer by their presence that they were tools of the trade in current use. Evidence of their possession at a closely related time is relevant to the charged conspiracy and not a mere showing of bad character, even if it relates to transactions outside the scope of the indictment. See United States v. Carson, 702 F.2d 351, 368 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1108, 103 S.Ct. 2456, 2457, 77 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1983). The evidence is also probative of Osario-Serna's intent and state of mind to engage in the narcotics trafficking that was charged. See United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89, 96 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 970, 96 S.Ct. 2166, 48 L.Ed.2d 793 (1976). 45 The rest of Osario-Serna's objections to the items found in the apartment are easily rejected. The government's alleged failure to show that Osario-Serna was in exclusive possession of the apartment is immaterial. It was not disputed that he lived there. Further, he consented to the search and has never subsequently objected to it. His argument that the existence of drug-related items in the apartment did not tend to prove his use or control of them goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Finally, the probative value of such evidence was not outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. 46 D. Restrictions on Garcia's Expert Testimony 47 Roldan-Zapata asserts that the trial court unfairly limited his direct examination of defense expert witness Ralph Garcia regarding police and DEA agents' procedures involving record keeping and surveillance on drug cases. Detective Mistretta had testified that he saw Roldan-Zapata go to the burgundy Oldsmobile and speak with and gesture to John Doe Leather Jacket, who had just delivered the cocaine to Akiva, but he never documented this observation in a report. Roldan-Zapata wanted Garcia to testify to the effect that observations made during surveillance are normally documented in a report, to attack Mistretta's credibility and to cast doubt on whether the event occurred. 48 The district court acted within its discretion in preventing Garcia from testifying as to the normal procedure of documenting surveillance observations. Fed.R.Evid. 702 allows a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge or experience to testify regarding his specialized area of knowledge if such testimony will be helpful to the trier of fact. A trial judge has broad discretion in applying the rule, and his actions will be sustained unless manifestly erroneous. United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d at 616 (quoting United States v. Everett, 825 F.2d 658, 662 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1069, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988)). 49 Roldan-Zapata offered Garcia as an expert relative to drug cases, drug paraphernalia, and things of that nature. Garcia was clearly qualified to testify, and did so, as to whether the notes and ledgers taken from defendants were narcotics records and whether only drug dealers use beepers and pay telephones. However, Garcia's competence to testify as to the then-current recordkeeping procedures of the law enforcement agencies involved, or whether there should have been a written report memorializing Mistretta's observation, was not established. A witness may be qualified as an expert on certain matters and not others. See United States v. Pugliese, 712 F.2d 1574, 1581-82 (2d Cir.1983). Garcia had been a Washington, D.C. police officer for three and one-half years and a DEA agent for eight years, but had never been permanently assigned to the New York area and had retired from government service in 1979, eight years before the events at issue. In this light, the district court's exclusion of the proffered testimony as to normal procedures was not manifest error. 50 Furthermore, Garcia's testimony on this score was excludable as cumulative. See Fed.R.Evid. 403; United States v. Cruz, 797 F.2d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638, 643 (2d Cir.1983). Defense counsel extensively questioned Detective Mistretta about the observations at issue and emphasized the absence of such observations from any report. Further, expert testimony was not necessary to assist the jury which had before it all of the relevant means to assess the credibility of the witness. 51 Similarly, the district court did not err in prohibiting Garcia from testifying as to the usual government practice of recording the debriefing of a cooperating witnesses. Akiva testified to certain incidents implicating Roldan-Zapata in the conspiracy, including Osario-Serna's El Jefe comment and the statements in the MCC, but the government failed to provide any written statements of Akiva reflecting these incidents. The district court acted within its discretion in excluding Garcia's proposed testimony, in light of Garcia's questionable expertise on this score, and the fact that such testimony was rendered largely cumulative by Akiva's statement on cross-examination that he thought some notes were taken of his debriefing. E. Restrictions on Examination of Mistretta 52 Roldan-Zapata asserts that the district court unfairly restricted his examination of Detective Mistretta regarding two documents said to reveal prior inconsistent statements by Mistretta related to his testimony regarding Roldan-Zapata's conversation with John Doe Leather Jacket in the Burger King parking lot. The court prevented counsel from (1) impeaching Mistretta with purported inaccuracies--involving the relative placement of the pay phones and the Oldsmobile--in the report of Detective Mulcahy, to whom Mistretta had given information, and (2) exploring the allegations in the criminal complaint, based in part on information provided by Mistretta, concerning the existence of a third person at the conversation. Although we find these rulings problematic, 1 in neither instance did the district court's restriction on examination so undermine the defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses as to create reversible error. 53 As long as a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him is not violated, limitations on cross-examination are not grounds for reversal. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-79, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1434-35, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 2 Cross-examination is not improperly curtailed if the jury is in possession of facts sufficient to make a discriminating appraisal of the particular witness's credibility. See United States v. Singh, 628 F.2d 758, 763 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1034, 101 S.Ct. 609, 66 L.Ed.2d 496 (1980). In this case, the extensive cross-examination of Detective Mistretta about his description of Roldan-Zapata's meeting with John Doe Leather Jacket after the cocaine transfer adequately apprised the jury of information enabling them to make a discerning appraisal of Mistretta's credibility on this matter. Accordingly, there was no violation of Roldan-Zapata's sixth amendment rights. F. Court's Alleged Disparagement of Counsel 54 Roldan-Zapata also claims that the district court erred by consistently making derogatory statements and demeaning counsel for the defendant in front of the jury[,] ... [thereby] unmistakably convey[ing] to the jury the trial judge[']s prejudicial opinion that the defendant was guilty. We disagree. 55 A fair reading of the record reveals that the judge's comments in front of the jury, even if at times stern or sarcastic, were appropriate responses to counsel's improper questioning of witnesses, inappropriate requests and disrespectful gestures. Moreover, such rebukes of counsel were not likely to cause a juror to feel that the judge believed Roldan-Zapata to be guilty. Finally, other comments by the judge in the absence of the jury, even if unwarranted, furnish no basis for reversal. See United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 221 (2d Cir.1987).