Opinion ID: 1039752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Valdes’s “Mere Presence” Defense at Trial

Text: Valdes’s three-day trial began on January 23, 2012. The ATF agent who initiated the sting operation, Agent Espinosa, was the government’s first witness. During cross-examination of Agent Espinosa, Valdes’s attorney revealed that one of Valdes’s defenses was that Valdes was merely present at the warehouse that day and was not involved in the planned robbery. These questions, the district court concluded, opened the door to Rule 404(b) evidence. Specifically, during cross-examination, Valdes’s attorney asked Agent Espinosa why ATF had not arrested an individual who had dropped out of the robbery plan before the evening of June 23. Agent Espinosa stated that this person, Perez, was not arrested because “[h]e did not show up on the day of the arrest.” Valdes’s attorney then asked: “So if you showed up, you got arrested?” Agent Espinosa answered, “Yes.” Later on during cross-examination, defendant Valdes’s attorney returned to this point. He asked Agent Espinosa: “Ariel Valdes was arrested because he showed up that day, correct? Agent Espinosa answered: “He was taken into 9 Case: 11-15517 Date Filed: 09/04/2013 Page: 10 of 20 custody, yes.” Valdes’s attorney reiterated that Valdes had been arrested “[b]ecause he showed up.” Agent Espinosa agreed with this statement, testifying: “Because he was there, yes.” H. Introduction of Rule 404(b) Evidence About Other Robberies At end of the government’s case-in-chief, the district court returned to the Rule 404(b) issue. The district court pointed out Valdes’s attorney’s questions of Agent Espinosa. Based on these questions, the district court stated, “the defense in part is, [‘]I was simply merely present. I had no knowledge of an upcoming robbery.[’]” Because Valdes was asserting this defense, the district court concluded that “perhaps the Rule 404(b) evidence of other incidents would be relevant and . . . should be allowed.” Valdes again objected to the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence. He contended that it was Agent Espinosa who had first brought up the “mere presence” issue and that Vlades’s attorney “didn’t use the words ‘mere presence.’” The district court overruled the objection. The government then called Olivera-Garcia, Valdes’s co-defendant, who testified about four home invasion robberies that he and Valdes had committed before the June 23 sting operation. Olivera-Garcia stated that, approximately two years before June 23, 2011, he and Valdes committed a home invasion robbery in Cape Coral, Florida, during which they stole approximately seven pounds of 10 Case: 11-15517 Date Filed: 09/04/2013 Page: 11 of 20 marijuana. Valdes and Olivera-Garcia also robbed a home in West Palm Beach, Florida, again stealing marijuana. Approximately a year and a half before their June 23, 2011 arrests, Valdes and Olivera-Garcia committed another home invasion robbery in Eureka, Florida. During that robbery, they stole “about eight pounds” of marijuana. They robbed a fourth house in Tampa, Florida; however they were unsuccessful in stealing marijuana during that robbery “[b]ecause there were people inside the house.” Olivera-Garcia testified that, during each of these robberies, either he or Valdes had a gun. During cross-examination, Olivera-Garcia could not remember the addresses of the houses that he and Valdes had robbed, or the specific dates on which the robberies had occurred. Olivera-Garcia recalled that the Cape Coral house was white, but he did not remember the colors of the other houses. Olivera-Garcia stated that he and Valdes had learned the locations of these drug houses by eavesdropping during public conversations in “cafeteria bars” and then installing tracking devices on the vehicles of strangers who talked about keeping marijuana. However, Olivera-Garcia did not remember the specific bars or cafeterias where he and Valdes had gone to learn about robbery targets.