Opinion ID: 1292494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claims of marcos rivera-perez, juan carlos torres-rodriguez, and emanuel rivera maldonado as to their convictions

Text: Three defendants argue that the evidence of intent and agreement to participate in the conspiracy was insufficient for a conviction. Rivera-Perez and Torres-Rodriguez also argue that the court erred in admitting the testimony of Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Regino Chavez, alleging Chavez gave improper overview testimony. We reject both claims.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction de novo. United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59, 64 (1st Cir.2009). We take the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. If a reasonable jury could find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the charged offense, we must affirm the conviction. Id. On count one, the prosecution had to prove, through direct or circumstantial evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed with others to distribute drugs. United States v. Rivera Calderon, 578 F.3d 78, 88 (1st Cir.2009). Evidence of a knowing agreement could include evidence that the defendants took actions that furthered the conspiracy's goals. United States v. García-Pastrana, 584 F.3d 351, 377 (1st Cir.2009).
Marcos Rivera-Perez admits on appeal, as he conceded while testifying at trial, that he sold drugs in El Cerro, but he says the evidence did not show he sold drugs for the Chevres-Motta conspiracy. Sufficient evidence connected Rivera-Perez to the Chevres-Motta conspiracy. Both a lead investigator in the case and a confidential informant identified him and testified that he sold drugs in El Cerro. Videos showed him selling drugs from black fanny packs, as the conspiracy's other sellers did. Rivera-Perez was shown selling drugs from the stairwell near the basketball court, a regular drug point for this conspiracy. Videos showed Rivera-Perez selling to, interacting with, and standing nearby known conspiracy members and clients. A jury could easily reject the idea that Chevres-Motta and his coconspirators would permit a competing drug dealer to sell in the heart of their small, isolated neighborhood at one of their usual drug points. A reasonable juror instead could conclude that Rivera-Perez sold drugs for this conspiracy and therefore agreed and intended to further its aims.
Torres-Rodriguez, the crack cooker, who lived twenty minutes from El Cerro, also argues that the evidence showed at most he cooked crack with his neighbor, Motta-Morales, but not for the rest of the El Cerro conspiracy led by Chevres-Motta. The evidence was sufficient. In several phone calls, played at trial, Torres-Rodriguez and Motta-Morales discussed cooking crack together. The evidence supported the jury's conclusion that they were collaborating to cook crack for Chevres-Motta's El Cerro organization for two reasons. First, the jury heard many phone calls in which Motta-Morales discussed his work as a cooker with a number of conspiracy members over a period of months. In particular, Motta-Morales discussed his work with the conspiracy leader, Chevres-Motta, who was Motta-Morales's cousin. He reported his progress cooking crack, discussed how to buy more cocaine to cook, and planned how to deliver drugs to Chevres-Motta and receive payment. Second, many calls played before the jury between Torres-Rodriguez and Motta-Morales supported the inference that they were working for Chevres-Motta, since they referenced Chevres-Motta several times by his street name. Motta-Morales reported to Torres-Rodriguez Chevres-Motta's instructions and comments about their work cooking crack, and he did so once shortly after he had ended a call with Chevres-Motta.
Rivera Maldonado, the former Naranjito municipal police officer, urges that the evidence did not show that he intended to help a drug conspiracy or even that he knew he had spoken with a conspiracy member; he says he was simply helping family. He did, from his position as a police officer, provide help to the conspiracy, and a reasonable jury could conclude that he knew what he was doing and intended to assist the drug conspiracy. Phone calls captured on the wiretap between Rivera Maldonado and Rolando Motta-Morales, who cooked for the El Cerro group, linked Rivera Maldonado to the larger conspiracy. Rivera Maldonado was Motta-Morales's cousin and brother-in-law. A jury could have reasonably concluded that, in those calls, Rivera Maldonado gave Motta-Morales confidential police information to help Motta-Morales avoid police detection. On March 2, 2006, Motta-Morales called Rivera Maldonado. Motta-Morales reported that a white Ford Mustang had been following him and provided the car's license plate. Two officers investigating the conspiracy had been using that car that day for surveillance. In response to this report, Rivera Maldonado went through police channels and learned that the license plate was unregistered. In Puerto Rico, unregistered license plates typically denote law enforcement vehicles. Although he knew this information was confidential and its release could jeopardize a police investigation, Rivera Maldonado called Motta-Morales and reported that the license plate was unregistered. Rivera Maldonado warned Motta-Morales to be careful and acknowledged that the plate could belong to a police vehicle. The officers in the vehicle, realizing from the wiretap their cover was blown, then tested for the source of the leak. They drove the white Mustang to the police station on March 3. Rivera Maldonado came out and inspected the car in the parking lot. The officers approached Rivera Maldonado, told him they were using the car to locate a fugitive in Palmarito, and asked Rivera Maldonado for help. Rivera Maldonado told them his cousin, who lived in that area, had reported that car was watching him. He called Motta-Morales, while standing with the investigators, and told Motta-Morales that the car belonged to police. About three hours later, Rivera Maldonado again called Motta-Morales and encouraged him to help find the fugitive, stating that police would leave the area once the fugitive was captured. Motta-Morales agreed that he would prefer less police presence near his home, observing that the police were placing too much heat on his place. On March 9, 2006, Rivera Maldonado called Motta-Morales again to report having seen strange cars on property Motta-Morales's family owned. The jury could reasonably reject Rivera Maldonado's story that he gave his cousin the license plate information because another drug dealer, El Gordo, had threatened Motta-Morales's life. Rivera Maldonado testified that he believed the car could belong to El Gordo and did not know his cousin was involved in the El Cerro drug conspiracy. Rivera Maldonado admitted, however, that he was aware that Motta-Morales knew Chevres-Motta and that Chevres-Motta ran a drug ring in El Cerro. And although he claimed he believed Motta-Morales's life was in danger, he never made a report of Motta-Morales's phone call or took steps to protect him from a death threat. A jury also could have inferred that Rivera Maldonado intended to further the conspiracy's aims by helping Motta-Morales avoid police detection. Rivera Maldonado knew that he gave Motta-Morales confidential information that could risk other officers' investigation and even lives. Rivera Maldonaldo also counseled his cousin to be careful and to help locate the fugitive, which would remove police scrutiny from Motta-Morales's area.
Evidentiary objections, including to overview testimony, are reviewed for abuse of discretion when they were preserved and for plain error when they were not. [2] See United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42, 56-57 (1st Cir.2006); United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104, 113 (1st Cir.2004). Even if there was an error, however, we affirm if it was harmless. See Hall, 434 F.3d at 57. Rivera-Perez, the seller, and Torres-Rodriguez, the crack cooker, object to the lay witness testimony of Special Agent Regino Chavez, who was a lead investigator on this case. While Agent Chavez was testifying, the government played for the jury video tapes of conspiracy members participating in drug activity and wiretap recordings of phone conversations between conspirators. [3] On appeal, the defendants argue that eighteen portions of this testimony were improper overview testimony. We break those portions into two categories. First, the defendants object to Chavez's testimony that placed the videos and recordings in the context of this conspiracy. He identified members of the conspiracy and their roles and related what they were doing and saying to the broader conspiracy. Second, they contest Chavez's testimony translating for the jury how actions taken on the video and statements made in the recordings related to drug activity. Chavez identified drug activity and interpreted coded language. We have previously cautioned that prosecutors should not permit investigators to give overview testimony, in which a government witness testifies about the results of a criminal investigation, usually including aspects of the investigation the witness did not participate in, before the government has presented supporting evidence. Overview testimony at times involves a witness's assertion of facts not based on his own knowledge when those facts are not otherwise proven. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 525 F.3d 85, 95-96 (1st Cir. 2008); Casas, 356 F.3d at 118-20. The prohibition on overly broad overview testimony arises from the basic principle in the Federal Rules of Evidence that witnesses, other than experts giving expert opinions, should testify from personal knowledge. See Fed.R.Evid. 602, 701, 802; see also, e.g., Casas, 356 F.3d at 118-20 (criticizing overview testimony because it was not based on the witness's personal knowledge); United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210, 1214-16 (1st Cir. 1986) (holding that an officer's testimony was inadmissible hearsay when he gave an overview of an investigation based in part on what other officers told him). A foundation should be laid establishing the basis of a witness's knowledge, opinion, or expertise. See Fed.R.Evid. 602, 701, 702; see also, e.g., United States v. García-Morales, 382 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.2004) (criticizing overview testimony that [the defendant] was a member of the drug conspiracy, even though the prosecution had not yet introduced evidence supporting this conclusion); 6 J.B. Weinstein & M.A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 1006.04[3], at 1006-14 (J.M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 2006) (It is improper ... for a party to open its case with an overview witness who summarizes evidence that has not yet been presented to the jury.). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Chavez's testimony about how the videos and wiretap recordings fit into the rest of the conspiracy as based on Chavez's personal knowledge. The prosecution laid a foundation that Chavez had personal knowledge of the conspiracy and its membership. He was a lead investigator; went to El Cerro at least fifty times; and repeatedly participated in video and personal surveillance, wiretap surveillance, and controlled drug buys. He testified that his knowledge was based on his personal observations. If a proper foundation is laid, government witnesses may testify about matters within their personal knowledge and give lay or, if qualified, exert opinion testimony. Relevant here, we have long held that government witnesses with experience in drug investigations may explain the drug trade and translate coded language for juries, either through lay or, if qualified, expert testimony. See United States v. Santiago, 560 F.3d 62, 66 & n. 1 (1st Cir.2009). This testimony is not overview testimony and is properly admitted. See Casas, 356 F.3d at 119. Chavez's testimony translating the videos and wiretap recordings helped the jury understand evidence it was hearing and seeing. E.g., Santiago, 560 F.3d at 66. The jury could independently evaluate Chavez's interpretations, and the defendants exhaustively cross-examined Chavez about possible alternative interpretations.