Opinion ID: 61172
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Trials

Text: In a second superseding indictment, Tavarez was indicted, along with Mark Daniel Gutierrez, for (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin from on or about October 24, 2006 to January 23, 2007, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846 (Count One); and (2) possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin on January 23, 2007, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (Count Two). Tavarez alone was indicted for (3) carrying a firearm on January 23, 2007 in relation to the drug offenses in Counts One and Two, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count Three). Gutierrez pled guilty, but Tavarez pled not guilty. At his first trial, the jury found Tavarez not guilty on Count Three but could not reach a verdict on Counts One and Two. The district court declared a mistrial. During Tavarez’s second trial on Counts One and Two, Tavarez’s counsel 2 cross-examined Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) Special Agent Anne-Judith Lambert. Tavarez’s counsel asked Special Agent Lambert if Tavarez was “cooperative” at the time of his arrest. In reply, Special Agent Lambert testified that Tavarez was cooperative in that he did not resist arrest but that he was uncooperative in that he refused to give information, as follows: Q. But as far as how [Tavarez] was arrested, he walks downstairs, gets into a truck and he is notified he is under arrest, correct? A. Yes, he is. Q. He is cooperative, correct? A. Yes. He doesn’t resist arrest if that’s what you mean. Q. He doesn’t try to run, makes no f[u]rtive movement with his hands, correct? A. No. Q. And his girlfriend allows a search of the house, correct – of an apartment? A. I was told that, but I can’t testify to that because I was not there for the search. ... Q. This may sound crazy, but if the defendant was cooperative when he got arrested, if his girlfriend said, sure, go ahead and search my residence, did it ever dawn on you or anybody else in the Justice Department to say: Can we search your house? A. I don’t know what you mean when you say “cooperated.” He didn’t resist arrest. And, no, he did not cooperate because he refused to give information. Tavarez’s counsel then moved for a mistrial, arguing that Special Agent Lambert had commented on Tavarez’s constitutional right to remain silent. Tavarez’s counsel argued he was very clear in his questioning that he was asking 3 about Tavarez’s physical movements and not about Tavarez’s speaking to the police. The district court denied the motion, stating “I don’t know that she commented on your client’s right to remain silent. If she did, you opened the door.” The jury found Tavarez guilty on Count One (heroin conspiracy) and not guilty on Count Two (heroin possession). Following the jury verdict, Tavarez’s counsel moved for a new trial. Tavarez’s new trial motion argued that Special Agent Lambert’s statement should not have been permitted. The district court denied the motion on the basis that: (1) the mere mention of post-arrest silence does not result in a mistrial; (2) there was no due process violation, particularly where the trial evidence was strong; and (3) Special Agent Lambert’s testimony was not necessarily unresponsive to the defense counsel’s line of questioning.