Opinion ID: 4503119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

Text: Prior to the second jury trial, all defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on three enumerated grounds containing multiple sub-issues.6 The defendants argued that: (1) there was no evidence that their vessel was outside the territorial waters of a foreign nation, precluding jurisdiction based on the vessel’s status as one without nationality; (2) there was no evidence that the cocaine allegedly being transported by the vessel was destined for the United States, such that there was no U.S. “nexus” permitting the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction; (3) without a requirement that the trafficking crime have a “nexus” to the United States, the MDLEA’s jurisdictional element violates due process; (4) the MDLEA’s requirement that the district court determine the 6 While Palacios-Solis filed the motion to dismiss the indictment, the district court granted Cabezas-Montano’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motion to adopt it. 17 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 18 of 97 jurisdictional element, rather than the jury, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, especially in cases where a vessel is declared “stateless” and the parties dispute material facts regarding the alleged statelessness; and (5) the admission of a certification of the Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction in such a case would violate the Confrontation Clause and constitute inadmissible hearsay. In response, the government argued, inter alia, that: (1) the defendants were interdicted in international waters and upon the high seas when their GFV was stopped approximately 215 nautical miles southwest of the coast of Guatemala in the Pacific Ocean; (2) their GFV was without nationality and was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and (3) the defendants’ remaining arguments were foreclosed by this Court’s precedent. At a pre-trial hearing before a magistrate judge, defendants’ counsel made their jurisdictional arguments. The magistrate judge’s report (“R&R”) recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment. The magistrate judge found that: (1) the vessel was in international waters at the time it was intercepted by the Coast Guard; (2) jurisdiction existed under § 70502(c)(1)(A) of the MDLEA because the defendants’ vessel was “without nationality”; and (3) this Court’s precedent foreclosed the defendants’ constitutional arguments. Over the defendants’ objections, the district court 18 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 19 of 97 adopted the R&R and denied their motion to dismiss the indictment. B. Defendants’ Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Next, Palacios-Solis filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the defendants’ post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence in response to the Coast Guard’s interrogation. Palacios-Solis conceded that this Court’s precedent foreclosed his argument but sought to preserve the issue. Guagua-Alarcon adopted the motion. In response, the government submitted that it did not intend to elicit, in its case-in-chief, the defendants’ silence or statements other than their silence or answers to the Coast Guard’s questions regarding: (1) the master or captain of the GFV; (2) the nationality of the GFV; (3) the last port of call; and (4) the next port of call. The government reserved the right to elicit any silence or statements during the defense’s case and in rebuttal.7 The district court denied Palacios-Solis’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motion in limine as moot. The district court highlighted: (1) the defendants’ concession that this Court’s precedent foreclosed their challenge; (2) the admissibility of their silence or answers to the questions identified by the government; (3) the government’s indication that it otherwise would not elicit any other silence or statements by the defendants; and (4) the government’s rights pertaining to cross- 7 As explained later, the defendants on appeal challenge only the admission of their postarrest, pre-Miranda silence. 19 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 20 of 97 examination during the defense’s case and in rebuttal. C. Pretrial Hearing Before trial, the district court held a pretrial hearing during which it granted the defendants’ motion to deem any objection made by one defendant as adopted by all defendants, unless a defendant opted out. The government clarified that it intended to elicit during their case-in-chief: (1) the defendants’ silence when asked about the GFV’s nationality; (2) their actions of pointing to Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis when asked about the vessel’s master; (3) any statements or silence about the last and next ports of call; and (4) the defendants’ statement that they were adrift at sea for about 30 days. Palacios-Solis reiterated that this Court’s precedent permitted the admission of such evidence, but that he preserved his challenge to it. D. Government’s Case-In-Chief The second jury trial began on July 17, 2017. The government called seven witnesses: (1) six Coast Guard members who carried out the October 24-through25 interdiction operation and testified about the above events; and (2) the DEA forensic chemist who tested the seized evidence for cocaine. When Petty Officer Robert Tetzlaff testified as to his observations from the CIC’s FLIR system—namely, that he observed one of the GFV passengers flailing and frantically trying to fix the engine—Palacios-Solis moved for a mistrial on 20 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 21 of 97 Brady grounds. Palacios-Solis asserted that Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony indicated that there was a CIC FLIR video—showing the GFV passengers flailing and trying to restart the vessel—which the government had not turned over to the defense. The government responded that it learned of this aspect of Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony only the day before trial, that it did not possess the CIC’s FLIR video because it was already recorded over, and that it did not notify the defense because it did not view the evidence as exculpatory. The district court agreed that the evidence was inculpatory, not exculpatory, but directed the government to investigate whether the FLIR video actually was recorded and/or recorded over. The next day, the government notified the district court that, while the Coast Guard records its FLIR videos, it records over them if no preservation request is made, and that it no longer had the October 24/25, 2016 FLIR video. Palacios-Solis renewed his mistrial motion, which Cabezas-Montano and Guagua-Alarcon joined. The district court denied the motion and the trial continued. 8 E. Defendants’ Evidence, Government’s Rebuttal, and Rule 29 Motions The government rested on the third day of trial. The defendants moved for a 8 On direct examination, Officer Tetzlaff testified that the October 24/25 FLIR video likely was recorded over. During the defense’s cross-examination, Officer Tetzlaff agreed that it would have been helpful to compare the CIC’s and the helicopter’s FLIR videos and testified further about his observations from the CIC’s FLIR video on the night of the interdiction. Then, on redirect examination, Officer Tetzlaff confirmed that he did not tell prosecutors about his CIC FLIR observations until just before the second trial. 21 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 22 of 97 judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. They argued that there was insufficient evidence of their guilt and the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 The district court denied the defendants’ Rule 29 motions. The defense then called a maritime expert who prepared a coordinate model for this case. Palacios-Solis also testified. The defense rested. In rebuttal, the government called the Coast Guard health services technician and its own maritime expert who conducted a drift analysis of the defendants’ vessel. The defendants renewed their Rule 29 motions, which the district court denied. F. Jury Verdict and Post-Trial Motions After deliberations, the jury found all three defendants guilty on both counts. Palacios-Solis filed a post-trial Rule 29 motion claiming again that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; and (3) the government’s introduction of the defendants’ post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights against selfincrimination. Ultimately, at sentencing, the district court denied Palacios-Solis’s post-trial Rule 29 motion. Among other things, the district court determined that no defendant had claimed to be the master of the vessel or claimed any nationality, 9 Palacios-Solis renewed his motion to dismiss the indictment. Guagua-Alarcon adopted both codefendants’ Rule 29 arguments. The district court stated that after trial it would revisit the renewed motion to dismiss but that it did not hear anything that would change its prior determination. 22 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 23 of 97 that the Coast Guard could not confirm or deny the vessel’s nationality, and thus the vessel was without nationality and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This is the defendants’ appeal.