Opinion ID: 14436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Evidence as to Baltazar Saenz

Text: The government’s case against Saenz on both the conspiracy and possession counts was short on physical evidence. Customs obtained the license plate number of the Jeep Cherokee and later learned that it was registered to Baltazar Saenz. Saenz’s name and telephone number were on a piece of paper found in Israel Soto’s wallet. Neither deputy Rodriguez nor the Customs agents involved in the events of February 14, 1995 in Florida were able to place Saenz inside the Jeep. Rodriguez testified that he saw four individuals in the Jeep; he identified one of the back seat passengers as Ernesto Soto and described the other back seat passenger as “a short guy with an Afro.” From photographs, Rodriguez later identified the front seat passenger as Joe Saenz, Baltazar Saenz’s brother. Rodriguez could only state that Baltazar 5 Saenz “[t]ends to look like the driver of the vehicle. Of the Cherokee.” The government’s case against Saenz was based largely on Israel Soto’s testimony. Soto pleaded guilty and as part of his plea agreement agreed to testify against Saenz. Soto’s sentencing was delayed until after the trial. At trial, Soto testified that he met Saenz in Florida in 1983, when they both worked for a sod company. Soto testified that he and Saenz “sometimes . . . used to get together, have a few beers.” Soto testified that he and Saenz “used to be pretty good friends,” and went so far as to say that he “love[s] the guy [Saenz].” Soto testified that he kept in touch with Saenz after Soto moved to Brownsville, Texas in 1989. In approximately 1993, Soto borrowed $1,000 from Saenz and did not repay the loan. Soto testified that he and Saenz agreed that “if we ever get something done, he could have deducted from that.” Soto testified that “something” meant “[g]et some marijuana business done”; their agreement was that “[i]f I ever get some marijuana or something, [to] give [Saenz] a call and we work it out together.” Soto testified that in December 1994, after he arranged to transport the marijuana to Florida, he called Saenz to ask whether Saenz would receive the shipment and try to sell the marijuana. According to Soto, Saenz agreed. Soto testified that on February 9, 1995, he made a collect call to Saenz to tell him that “everything was going to be fine” and that the load was “on its way.” Soto placed this call from the Cameron County jail. Telephone records confirmed two 6 collect calls, each lasting seven to ten minutes, made from the Cameron County jail to Saenz’s Florida residence on February 12 and 13, 1995. The records also showed seventeen telephone calls, each lasting approximately one minute, placed from Soto’s residence in Lyford, Texas to Saenz’s Florida residence between December 30, 1994 and March 1, 1995. The telephone records also showed several calls from Saenz’s residence in Florida to the Brownsville, Texas area during the same period, but none to Soto’s Lyford, Texas residence. Soto testified that on February 15, 1995, after his release from jail, he called Saenz to “find out how things were going [with the load].” According to Soto, Saenz said that “everything went wrong” and that he suspected a set-up because the delivery truck had been in good condition when delivered to deputy Rodriguez. Saenz said that the load had been confiscated and that he had paid $9,780 to Rodriguez. Soto also testified that during the telephone call, Saenz said that he had gone back to pick up Ernesto Soto in the parking lot about an hour after Saenz had left in the Jeep. Soto denied that he held “anything against Mr. Saenz personally” and explained that he was testifying against Saenz “[b]ecause I realize we made a mistake and I wanted to make it up to me.” No other witnesses testified to Saenz’s involvement in any aspect of the trafficking operation. Beatrice Saenz, Saenz’s wife, testified for the defense. She testified that she accepted two collect telephone calls from 7 Soto because she thought that the calls were from her cousin, whose first name is also Israel. In each of the two collect calls, the caller asked if Saenz was home; Saenz’s wife replied that her husband was at work and hung up. Saenz’s wife also testified that she did not take a telephone call from “Israel” on February 15, but that her brothers, who lived at the Saenz residence, may have done so. Saenz’s wife also testified that her husband took her out for dinner the night of February 14, 1995. Saenz testified on his own behalf. His testimony differed from Soto’s in numerous respects. Saenz testified that he first met Soto in 1986, not 1983. Saenz denied that he and Soto were “close friends” or “best friends,” but described Soto as a “co-worker” that Saenz knew “at work but that was about it.” Saenz conceded that he had loaned Soto money, but only $500, not $1,000. Saenz agreed that Soto never paid him back, but denied the existence of any agreement about repaying the loan. Saenz vigorously denied that he and Soto agreed to sell marijuana. Saenz denied speaking with Soto about a shipment of marijuana; speaking with Soto when he called from the Cameron County jail; and knowing Soto’s brother, Ernesto Soto. III. The Challenge to the District Court’s Questions to the Witnesses
Because Saenz’s trial counsel did not object at trial to the district court’s questions to the witnesses, this court reviews the district court’s actions for plain error. See United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d 956, 964 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1856 8 (1997). Plain error is “‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ and, ‘[a]t a minimum,’ contemplates an error which was ‘clear under current law’ at the time of trial.” United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993)). “[T]o be reviewable under this standard an obvious legal error must affect substantial rights. . . . [P]lain forfeited errors affecting substantial rights should be corrected on appeal only if they ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 164 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 56 S. Ct. 391, 392 (1936)). “A trial judge has wide discretion over the ‘tone and tempo’ of a trial and may elicit further information from a witness if he believes it would benefit the jury.” United States v. Rodriguez, 835 F.2d 1090, 1094 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Adkins, 741 F.2d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 1984)). Federal Rule of Evidence 614(b) permits the trial judge to “interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.” FED. R. EVID. 614(b). In exercising this discretion, the trial court “‘may question witnesses and elicit facts not yet adduced or clarify those previously presented.’” United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1087 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 1979)). A judge’s questions must be for the purpose of aiding the jury in understanding the testimony. See United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1570 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Rodriguez, 835 F.2d at 1094). However, the trial court’s efforts to move the trial along may not come at the cost of “strict 9 impartiality.” United States v. Davis, 752 F.2d 963, 974 (5th Cir. 1985). In reviewing a claim that the trial court appeared partial, this court must “‘determine whether the judge’s behavior was so prejudicial that it denied the [defendant] a fair, as opposed to a perfect, trial.’” Williams, 809 F.2d at 1086 (quoting United States v. Pisani, 773 F.2d 397, 402 (2d Cir. 1985)). We recently set out the standard to be applied in making this determination: To rise to the level of constitutional error, the district judge’s actions, viewed as a whole, must amount to an intervention that could have led the jury to a predisposition of guilt by improperly confusing the functions of