Court Opinion

ID: 9475525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:30:00.470542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:45.920886
License: Public Domain

WALTER E. HOFFMAN, Senior District Judge,
dissenting.
The majority has found the defenses of Lopez1 and Gonzalez to be antagonistic and mutally exclusive, thus second-guessing the district court’s denial of Gonzalez’ motion to sever which, as all authorities reflect, is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the district court. I respectfully dissent. The decision of the majority will open the door to a flood of severance motions based upon testimony which conflicts, but in largely peripheral matters which are not at the core of the defense of either or both of the defendants.
The core of the defenses of both Lopez and Gonzalez was that neither defendant knew anything about the two blue boxes containing cocaine which were discovered by the Coast Guard during the late night hours of December 12,1984, under the port engine of the JUAN CARLOS I. The defendants, according to their versions, traveled separately from Miami to Bimini; a voyage requiring slightly less than three hours. Their testimony was to the effect that they did not know each other prior to their arrivals at Bimini. Carlos, whose full name is otherwise unknown, took Lopez to Bimini in one boat to repair two other boats; one it later developed was the *697JUAN CARLOS I which, in the opinion of Lopez, could not be repaired at Bimini; the other boat was repaired at its location. Gonzalez, on the other hand, was persuaded by a millionaire known as Fernando, whose full name is otherwise unknown but whose nickname was Rápido, to take the JUAN CARLOS I to Bimini to deliver a relatively small quantity of oil at Bimini for the sum of $1,000 for Gonzalez’ Services and incidental expenses. Near the entrance to Bimini the JUAN CARLOS I was damaged when Fernando, the operator, encountered some rocks. Gonzalez, according to his testimony, had been told by the registered owner of the JUAN CARLOS I, Alfonso Majera,2 that he, Majera, wanted to sell the boat and that, since Majera was “a friend of mine,”3 Gonzalez knew that he could use it for the trip to Bimini with the unknown Fernando who carries the nickname “Rápido” or “El Rápido.”4
After it became apparent that the JUAN CARLOS I could not be repaired in Bimini, it is the contention of each defendant that each was left stranded in Bimini; Lopez was stranded by the otherwise unknown “Carlos”; Gonzalez was left stranded by the otherwise unknown “Fernando.”5 Neither “Carlos” nor “Fernando” accompanied the defendants on the return trip to Miami.
The record shows that, at no time, did Lopez state or suggest that Gonzalez was the owner, or at any time had the possession, of the two blue boxes containing the cocaine. As far as Lopez was concerned, Gonzalez had no connection with the cocaine, although he did state that Gonzalez represented himself as the owner of the boal. As to Gonzalez, he likewise did not testify that Lopez had anything to do with the cocaine, although he did state that, approximately one-half hour before the BAHAMA TRANSPORTER departed Bimini with the JUAN CARLOS I in tow, he saw Lopez and an unidentified man go aboard the JUAN CARLOS I with the man carrying a package and, when they left the boat, neither Lopez nor the man had the package. This is apparently what Gonzalez referred to as “something seemed suspicious.” In any event, Gonzalez cannot claim the benefit of an antagonistic and mutually exclusive defense testimony created by him at the time of trial.
As in United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127,1134 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1981), “the essence or core of each defendant’s defense — noninvolvement in the criminal activity — was not in conflict, and indeed could be construed to be quite consistent, i.e., neither was criminally involved.” Id. at 1134. In Berkowitz, the court relies in part upon United States v. Sheikh, 654 F.2d 1057, 1065 (5th Cir.1981) (also cited in majority opinion herein), which is very much in point with the facts in the instant case. In Sheikh, as recited in Berkowitz, the court said:
[T]he appellant and a co-defendant both contended that they had no knowledge that heroin was hidden in a Koran display case that each had possessed. The appellant and the co-defendant, however, each claimed that the other was the owner of the case. The court held that, while with respect to ownership of the case the two defenses were so antago*698nistic as to be irreconcilable and mutually exclusive, the “essence” or “crux” of the defenses were not antagonistic, and thus neither defendant suffered the compelling prejudice that would require severance.
While neither Lopez nor Gonzalez ever claimed that Lopez was the owner of the JUAN CARLOS I, Lopez was admittedly the “operator” on the return voyage to Miami and, in this respect, he was in the nature of an owner for the time being. Unless this circuit is disposed to disregard Sheikh, as interpreted by the later Berkowitz opinion, I cannot agree with my colleagues that we are confronted with a “core” defense.
The majority also relies upon United States v. Crawford, 581 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1978) (binding on the 11th Circuit), as authority to support its conclusion to reverse the instant case. In Crawford, one Blanks was driving an automobile with Crawford as a passenger. Blanks was recognized by the officers as a person not having a driver’s license, and stopped the vehicle. The arresting officers found a sawed-off shotgun partially hidden under the dash. Both Blanks and Crawford were jointly charged with the possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. Each defendant sought a separate trial which was denied. At trial, Blanks testified that Crawford owned the firearm and presented witnesses who supported that testimony. Crawford, on the other hand, claimed that Blanks was the owner and that he, Crawford, had not seen the shotgun before the night of the arrest. The Crawford case involved a true, typical, “core” defense, where the sole defense was the guilt of the other defendant. Even though there is much to be said in favor of Judge Clark’s dissent in Crawford, I agree with the majority in that case as the factual situation demonstrated clearly that the defenses asserted by each defendant were obviously antagonistic and mutually exclusive. However, that is not this case where neither defendant points the finger at the other as to either the possession or ownership of the cocaine.
In the present case the jury was not required to convict both defendants, nor was it mandated by the evidence to convict one and acquit the other. They had several alternatives: first, the jury could conclude, as it did, that the two defendants conspired to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 955c, and thus find both defendants guilty on the conspiracy count; second, the jury could conclude that the Government had failed to meet the burden of proof imposed upon it by law, and find both defendants not guilty (although it is unlikely that the evidence would support a verdict against one defendant, and not against the other defendant, the conspiracy count refers to a possible conspiracy in that the named defendants did “agree with each other and with persons unknown6 to the Grand Jury”); third, on the substantive count (Count II), the jury could acquit or convict both defendants, or find one guilty and the other not guilty as it did in fact do. As stated in Berkowitz, at 1134:
Although the defendants concededly disagree on some details, neither defendant’s defense required the jury to find the other guilty. Nor was it necessary for the jury, in order to believe the core of testimony offered on behalf of one defendant, to disbelieve testimony offered on behalf of the other defendant.
Since the core of testimony with respect to each defendant is the same, i.e., a complete lack of knowledge of any criminal activity on the part of anyone, and since the standard for mutual exclusivity as given in United States v. Romanello, 726 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir.1984) (not binding on 11th Cir.), is:
The essence or core of the defense must be in conflict such that the jury, in order to believe the core of one defense, must *699necessarily disbelieve the core of the other
it is my conclusion that the majority has extended the rule of mutually antagonistic defenses too far in reaching out for details in the testimony presented, which details have no direct effect upon either the conspiracy charge or the substantive count. True, some of the evidence may have been more prejudicial to Gonzalez than to Lopez — all evidence is probably prejudicial to one side or the other — but this is not the test for determining whether a severance is mandated. I predict that, if the majority opinion becomes the law in the Eleventh .Circuit, many district courts will feel compelled to grant severances, especially in conspiracy cases.
The incident involving the discovery of the ignition key for one of the engines on the JUAN CARLOS I came to light just prior to the conclusion of the testimony of Lopez. Had Gonzalez admitted his prior possession of the key, it would have been no surprise to anyone as he admitted that he and Fernando brought the JUAN CARLOS I from Miami to Bimini. The same is true as to the registration for the boat except that the tearing up of the registration card carried with it some evidence of possible guilt with respect to the cocaine. By his own denial relating to the registration, and his attempt to place the blame on the Coast Guard as to the placing of the key to the engine in the cellblock, Gonzalez did create a strong suspicion of guilt, but this is a far cry from an antagonistic and mutually exclusive defense.
While it is apparent that the two defendants, Lopez and Gonzalez, disagree on several details of what occurred after the arrest, neither defendant’s defense required the jury to find the other guilty, Berkowitz, at 1134. This is not a case where the essence of one defendant’s defense is contradicted by a co-defendant’s defense, in which the latter defense can be said to “preempt” the former, United States v. Swanson, 572 F.2d 523, 529 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 849, 99 S.Ct. 152, 58 L.Ed.2d 152 (1978) (holding that no severance was required because the defense of noninvolvement did not “preempt” a defense of lack of intent).
That the acts as testified to by Lopez, especially the claimed destruction of the boat registration card and the concealment of the boat’s ignition key, all occurring after the arrests, may well have demonstrated that the evidence was stronger against Gonzalez than Lopez “does not satisfy the burden of showing compelling prejudice.” United States v. Marable, 574 F.2d 224, 231 (5th Cir.1978) (emphasis in original) (cited with approval in Berkowitz, at 1135, note 8).
The majority relies, in part, upon the comments of counsel for Lopez in his final argument to the jury.7 It is true that, at least in part, counsel for Lopez accused Gonzalez of being the owner of the cocaine, thus striking the core of the defense. When counsel for Lopez made this accusation, counsel for Gonzalez objected to that part of the argument and the objection was sustained by the trial judge. Now, however, the majority relies upon this improper argument8 by counsel for Lopez, to which an objection was interposed and sustained, and no cautionary instruction was requested.
It is very difficult for a trial judge to control the final argument of counsel unless an objection is interposed. Statements by counsel that a witness or co-defendant has lied are not uncommon experiences. Such accusations frequently rebound against the person making same, and the final result is too speculative to forecast. *700There was no objection interposed to counsel’s statement that Gonzalez had “lied” and the court never had the opportunity to take any action.
Finally, I argue that a separate trial would bring the same result. The Government will be able to use the testimony of Lopez given in the present case, even if Lopez is dead, or under some theory may decline to testify. Rule 804, F.R.Ev. I see no need to grant a new trial to Gonzalez.
Differing with my learned colleagues, I would affirm the judgment of conviction as to Gonzalez, as I have already done so with respect to Lopez in his Rule 25 disposition.

. Lopez was convicted of the conspiracy charge, Count I, but the jury returned a not guilty verdict on Count II. The appeal of Lopez was summarily denied and the judgment of conviction was affirmed under Rule 25 of this Court. Lopez did not move for a severance, either before or during the trial.

. The title papers of the JUAN CARLOS I revealed that Majera was, at that time, the registered owner. The owner prior to Majera was "Gilberto Gonzalez,” bearing the same name as the defendant, but defendant denied ever having any ownership of the vessel and the Government never proved to the contrary.

. Vol. Ill, p. 231. Majera was not called to testify as a witness. Agent Ricciardo obtained an address for Alfonso Majera, a resident of Dade County, Florida, but he was apparently not subpoenaed by any patty.

. Vol. Ill, p. 243. Fernando, also known as "Rápido” or "El Rápido,” did not testify as a witness. According to Gonzalez, Fernando was a millionaire, Vol. Ill, p. 233. It is difficult to believe that a millionaire such as Fernando, who drove a Mercedes convertible 450, could not be located in the general Miami area.

. When Gonzalez was interviewed by Michael Ricciardo, a United States Customs Service officer assigned to the Florida Joint Task Force, Gonzalez denied knowing “anything about the boat” [JUAN CARLOS I], Vol. II, pp. 92, 93, and did not refer to "Fernando” other than by a nickname "Rápido” or “El Rápido.”

. In United States v. Sheikh, 654 F.2d 1057, 1062 (5th Cir. Unit A, 1981), the Court reversed a conspiracy conviction against one defendant, where the other two defendants had been found not guilty, because there was insufficient evidence of the existence of any "unnamed, unindicted coconspirator."

. The court charged the jury in the customary manner by saying that “statements, objections or arguments by the lawyers are not evidence in the case.”

. The majority, in referring to the argument of counsel for Lopez, states: "The comments were proper insofar as Lopez was concerned as they are based upon evidence received during the trial. They highlight, however, the irreconcilable and antagonistic positions of Lopez and Gonzalez.” Presumably, the majority is referring to counsel’s accusation that Gonzalez was the owner of the cocaine, to which the objection was sustained.