Opinion ID: 1035557
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Identification of Magana at Trial

Text: Magana contends that the prosecution did not sufficiently identify her at trial because no witness for the prosecution personally identified her to the jury. This contention, however, is directly at odds with our longstanding precedent. Identity may be established “by inference and circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1110 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, a witness need not “actually ‘point out’ the defendant in the courtroom.” Id. Here, the prosecution called DEA Agent Royce Clayborne at trial, who testified that Magana’s driver’s license bore a home address matching the home address listed on Magana’s 2007 and 2008 tax returns. The license was 8 To be clear, evidence that simply demonstrates a defendant made purchases above—even grossly above—her means, is not sufficient alone to establish money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering. Here, the multiple and unexplained wire transfers, deposits, and contrivances (e.g., purchasing the CD) established Magana’s knowledge of sudden wealth from Salas’s trafficking. Only within this context was Magana’s otherwise inexplicable purchase of numerous expensive vehicles for Salas sufficient to establish her implicit agreement to launder his proceeds in order to facilitate his trafficking. 13 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 introduced into evidence, which allowed the jury to compare the picture on it with Magana. Under Seals, this was sufficient to establish Magana’s identity. III. Challenges to the Admission or Exclusion of Evidence
“Review of a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion, subject to harmless error review.” United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 774 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A “trial court is afforded wide discretion in assessing the relevance and prejudicial effect of evidence.” United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473, 494 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Therefore it has the power to exclude, inter alia, witness “testimony that would be cumulative and marginally relevant.” See United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921, 929 (5th Cir. 1994). “Alleged violations of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment during cross-examination are reviewed de novo, applying a harmless error standard.” United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 491 (5th Cir. 2011). B. Limitations on Magana’s Introduction of Character Evidence Magana submits that the district court abused its discretion when it limited her introduction of character evidence on the question of whether she is naive and gullible, or unduly influenced by her brother (Salas).
“Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). However, in a criminal case, “a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it.” Id. 14 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 404(a)(2)(A). When such “evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.” Id. 405(a).
Magana listed a friend and co-worker from the hair salon, Kim Montee, as a character witness. Montee would have testified that Magana was naive and gullible, or unduly influenced by Salas, and therefore did not know that Salas was a drug trafficker. The district court rejected the proffered testimony, explaining: “[T]he fact that [Magana] is or is not naive will not establish whether or not she has knowledge.” The court added that Magana “could be naive and still have done it willfully and knowingly. . . .” On appeal, Magana argues that Montee’s testimony was relevant under Rules 404(a)(2)(A) and 405(A). She submits that Montee’s testimony would have helped to establish a character trait of naivete which, Magana posits, would have undermined the jury’s determination that she knew Salas was a drug trafficker. Thus, Magana contends the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the testimony. We note at the outset that this argument fails on appeal in light of our broad deference to district court evidentiary determinations. See Seale, 600 F.3d at 494; Wallace; 32 F.3d at 929. That said, Magana presented a naivete defense at closing argument. It failed to persuade the jury, presumably because of the overwhelming evidence of Magana’s guilt. The incremental testimony of Montee—Magana’s conceded friend—would not have changed that outcome (at least not for legally cognizable reasons). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it limited Magana’s introduction of Montee’s testimony on the question of whether Magana is naive and gullible, or unduly influenced by Salas. C. Alaniz’s Crawford Challenge 15 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 Alaniz contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request for Crawford jury instructions, and admitted a recorded conversation between Salas and a confidential informant that criminally implicated him. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 1. Applicable Law “Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law . . . . Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68. “Statements made between co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy are not testimonial.” United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1145-46 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 2. Analysis Alaniz argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a recorded conversation between Salas and a confidential informant that criminally implicated Alaniz because the court had denied Alaniz’s request for accompanying Crawford jury instructions. Alaniz contends that the confidential informant on the tape was not CS1 or CS2, but a third confidential informant who did not testify. He also contends that admission of the tape without an accompanying instruction as to the parameters of Crawford and its progeny violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because neither Salas nor the purported third informant testified at trial. The government responds that it was CS2 on the tape, that he did testify at trial, and that he was subjected to cross-examination. The government also argues that, regardless, the contents of the recordings were non-testimonial statements between co-conspirators in furtherance of their conspiracy and, therefore, fell outside the ambit of the Confrontation Clause’s protections. 16 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 a. Whether the Confrontation Clause Extends to the Recorded Conversation. “A defendant is presumed to continue in a conspiracy unless he makes a substantial affirmative showing of withdrawal, abandonment, or defeat of the conspiratorial purpose.” United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 525 (5th Cir. 1997). “The defendant has the burden of proving affirmative acts that are inconsistent with the conspiracy and are communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach his coconspirators.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, unlike the three ML Appellants, Alaniz has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conspiracy conviction. Therefore, he is bound by that conviction on appeal. Furthermore, in his brief, he provides no evidence that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy at the time of the recorded conversation. Accordingly, for purposes of our review, Alaniz was a coconspirator with Salas and the confidential informant (who was pretending to conspire) with respect to any recorded statements pertaining to the conspiracy. “Statements made between co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy are not testimonial.” King, 541 F.3d at 1145-46 (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56). From the material discussed on the recordings and Officer Colon’s identification of the speakers, the district court reasonably concluded that the statements were made between Salas and a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. While the recorded conversation here was not between Salas and Alaniz, or between Alaniz and the informant, all three individuals were common to the conspiracy being discussed. Thus, the Confrontation Clause did not extend to the recorded statements. There was no need for a curative Crawford jury instruction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements without one. D. Challenges to the Testimony of CS1 and CS2 17 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 Salas, Alaniz, and Lopez submit that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed limitations on defense counsel’s cross-examinations of CS1 (Ramirez) and CS2 (Garcia), and allowed the two informants to testify under aliases without disclosing their dates of birth or social security numbers. 1. Additional Facts Prior to jury selection, the government shared the “true names” of CS1 and CS2 with defense counsel, as well as other background information including criminal histories, plea agreements, confidential informant agreements, payment schedules, and prior testimonies. Defense counsel then requested CS1 and CS2’s dates of birth and social security numbers, ostensibly to facilitate further background investigation for purposes of cross-examination. The district court denied that request. On July 11, 2011, the district court granted the government’s requests that CS1 and CS2 be allowed to testify under aliases at trial, and that defense counsel be prohibited from referring to them by their actual names. The two informants proceeded to testify under aliases and were subjected to cross-examination, albeit with the following limitations.
At the time of trial, CS1’s husband was in jail on unrelated drug trafficking charges. During cross examination, defense counsel asked CS1 how many years her husband was involved in the drug trade and, in a follow-up question, how many years she was aware of it. The prosecution objected to both questions, and the court sustained both objections on the ground that they were improper lines of impeachment. The court noted that defense counsel remained “free to bring up bias or prejudice.”
CS2 admitted at trial that, like Salas, he previously had worked with the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. CS2 acknowledged his prior involvement with cocaine and marijuana trafficking, and other violent crimes including murder. 18 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 During cross-examination, defense counsel asked CS2 whether he had reported his past income from the Gulf Cartel to the IRS. The district court rejected the question as irrelevant. 2. Applicable Law a. The “Informant Privilege” and the “Roviaro Limitation” on That Privilege The “informant privilege” is a privilege held by the government “to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957) (citations omitted). “The purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.” Id. In Roviaro, the confidential informant at issue “was not produced, identified, or otherwise made available” and, thus, did not testify at trial. Id. at 55. However, other witnesses for the prosecution testified concerning the informant’s role in the investigation. Id. During cross-examination of those witnesses, the district court rejected defense counsel’s attempts to learn the informant’s identity. Id. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s ultimate conviction, explaining: “Where the disclosure of an [informant’s] identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.” Id. at 60-61 (citations omitted). This “limitation on the applicability of the privilege arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness.” Id. at 60. b. “Roviaro Balancing” to Determine Whether the Informant Privilege Must Give Way to Disclosure “[N]o fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information 19 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62. “Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous [depends] on the particular circumstances of each case . . . .” Id. The non-exhaustive list of factors taken into consideration includes (i) “the crime charged”; (ii) “the possible defenses”; and (iii) “the possible significance of the [informant’s] testimony.” Id. Professors Mueller and Kirkpatrick have advocated that the optimum forum for this balancing of the public interest is an in camera hearing before the trial judge. See 2 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 5.63 (3d ed. 2007).
Trial Witnesses In Smith v. Illinois, the Supreme Court expressly distinguished Roviaro, and its attendant balancing, as applicable only where the informant did not testify under alias at trial (or did not testify at all). See 390 U.S. 129, 133 (1968). The Court explained that a government witness’s “name and address open countless avenues of in-court examination and out-of-court investigation. To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross-examination itself.” Id. at 131. Smith, however, did not mandate a per se rule requiring disclosure in open court of any government witness’s name and address. Research reveals two cases, unaddressed by the parties, in which courts addressed situations, like this one, in which government witnesses whose true names were provided to the defense were permitted to testify at trial under pseudonyms. See United States v. Celis, 608 F.3d 818 (D.C. Cir. 2010); United States v. Maso, No. 07-10858, 2007 WL 3121986 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished). Those courts concluded that such testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause, under the balancing framework set forth in Alford, Smith, and Roviaro, because the witnesses had a reasonable fear for their safety, and the non-disclosure of their true identities did not unduly 20 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 hamper the defendants’ ability to prepare their defenses. Celis, 608 F.3d at 832–33; Maso, 2007 WL 3121986, at .

Here, CS1 and CS2 testified at trial and were subjected to crossexamination. While they testified under aliases, defense counsel were provided with their “true names” and significant background information. The only restrictions were that defense counsel could not use the informants’ actual names in open court, and did not have access to the informants’ dates of birth and social security numbers. Balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the defendants’ confrontation rights, we conclude that the limited use of pseudonyms did not violate the Confrontation Clause in this case. Defense counsel were provided with the true names of the witnesses, information about their backgrounds, their criminal records, the amount of compensation they received for their DEA cooperation, and trial testimony they gave in previous cases. And the witnesses were not strangers; Salas had known them for years. The only information not disclosed to defense counsel was the witnesses’ dates of birth and social security numbers. We fail to see how the non-disclosure of such information, in light of the information provided, “frustrated meaningful investigation into their respective backgrounds.” The defendants do not identify what additional background information they sought to uncover. Nor do they provide apposite authority supporting their position that the non-disclosure of a witness’s date of birth and social security number violates the Confrontation Clause; indeed, the only authority they cite is a case in which the true name of a pseudonymous government witness was not disclosed to the defense, United States v. Fuentes, 988 F. Supp. 861 (E.D. Pa. 1997), a different situation than the one presented here. In fact, the situation here is strikingly similar to the 21 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 situations in Celis and Maso: in all three cases, the pseudonymous witnesses were informants for the DEA who feared reprisal from drug trafficking organizations. The principal difference is that the government here did not offer specific evidence that the witnesses had a legitimate fear of reprisal and the court did not make any findings on this issue. But the defendants did not raise a Roviaro objection to the district court, and we are aware of no case holding that a district court has the obligation to consider the Confrontation Clause implications of pseudonymous testimony sua sponte. Because the defendants raised a discovery objection, but not a confrontation objection, to the district court’s ruling allowing the confidential informants to testify under aliases, our review is for plain error. Under the circumstances, we perceive no plain error.
Examinations of CS1 and CS2 With respect to its limitations on defense counsel’s ability (i) to re-question CS1 about her possible involvement in her husband’s drug trafficking; and (ii) to question CS2 about his tax reporting practices for past drug trafficking income, the district court did not abuse its discretion. “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on . . . cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679. Here, the duplicative question to CS1 was “repetitive” at a minimum. Moreover, the question to CS2 was, at best,“marginally relevant.” “The relevant inquiry is whether the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness.” Tansley, 986 F.2d at 886 (citation omitted). Here, cross-examination provided the jury with ample insight into CS1 and CS2’s respective associations and criminal pasts, and possibly self-interested 22 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 motivations for cooperating with the government. The district court, which reminded defense counsel it remained “free to bring up bias or prejudice,” did not abuse its discretion by imposing its limitations on cross-examination.