Court Opinion

ID: 2964581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:54.06871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:25.345471
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1826

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  RICHARD MARSHALL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                      Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Gordon  D. Fox, with  whom David  A. Cooper  and Cooper  & Sanchez
            ______________             ________________      _________________
        were on brief, for appellant.
            Craig  N.  Moore, Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  with  whom
            ________________
        Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States  Attorney, and  Zechariah  Chafee,
        ___________________                                 _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 31, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      LYNCH,   Circuit  Judge.    The  Providence  police
                      LYNCH,   Circuit  Judge.
                               ______________

            arrested Richard  Marshall and another individual  in a Rhode

            Island hotel  room for  possession of  heroin with  intent to

            distribute  and  conspiring  to  do  the  same.    Initially,

            Marshall was acquitted on the  conspiracy count, but the jury

            deadlocked on  the possession with  intent charge.   A second

            trial,  limited  to the  charge  of  possession with  intent,

            resulted in a guilty  verdict.  Marshall was sentenced  to 72

            months' incarceration.

                       Marshall argues on appeal that his conviction  was

            brought about  by a  series of errors:  the district  court's

            denial of his  motion to  suppress, its failure  to make  the

            police produce  a tape recorder and tape which may or may not

            have  been in  the hotel  room, and  its limitation  of cross

            examination; a DEA agent's inconsistent  testimony before the

            grand  jury  and at  trial;  and improper  statements  by the

            prosecutor in his closing argument.   We reject these  claims

            and affirm the conviction.   The issue which merits  the most

            discussion is the contention about the "missing evidence."

                                          I.

                      We outline the  facts only as necessary  to set the

            framework for the issues, because Marshall does not challenge

            the  overall sufficiency  of  the evidence.    To the  extent

            Marshall  challenges  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  to

            support the  trial judge's  determination against him  on the

                                         -2-
                                          2

            motion to suppress,  the evidence is  described in the  light

            most  favorable   to  the  government.     United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Hernandez, 1997 WL 109200, *1 (1st Cir. Mar. 17, 1997).
            _________

                      On the  morning of November 30,  1994, a Providence

            police lieutenant received  a phone call from  the manager of

            the  Day's Hotel in Providence.  The manager reported that he

            suspected there  was drug  activity in  Room 312 involving  a

            Richard   Marshall   and  explained   the  reasons   for  his

            suspicions.    The  federal Drug  Enforcement  Administration

            ("DEA")  was brought  into  the case.    The officers  did  a

            background check  on  Richard Marshall  and  came up  with  a

            criminal record and a  photograph.  They drove to  the hotel,

            where  the manager confirmed there  had been a  heavy flow of

            traffic  in  and  out  of  Marshall's  room,  identified  the

            photograph as being of Marshall, and said Marshall had listed

            his  car as a Mercedes  Benz on the  hotel registration card.

            While  the officers were in the lot looking for the Mercedes,

            Marshall  appeared.   The officers identified  themselves and

            asked if they  could speak  with him.   Marshall agreed,  and

            when they said  there had been complaints about  the activity

            in his room, he said he had "his girl" in the room. 

                      The officers asked which  was his car, and Marshall

            pointed  to a  Toyota, which  had a  different license  plate

            number than the one  he had listed on the  registration card.

            The officers asked  permission to look  in the car;  Marshall

                                         -3-
                                          3

            agreed,  and they searched the car  but found no drugs.  When

            asked, Marshall  denied ever  having been arrested,  but when

            shown his arrest record, started to chuckle.

                      The officers  asked Marshall  if he minded  if they

            went to his room.  He said he did not mind  and repeated that

            his girl was there.  They all went  up to the room.  Although

            Marshall  had his  room key,  he knocked  on the  door before

            opening it.

                      There  was no  woman  in  the  room.    There  was,

            however,  a  man,  Thomas  Dantzler,  soon to  become  a  co-

            defendant.   In addition,  there was a  paper bag  protruding

            from  between the mattress and the  box springs of one of the

            beds.  The bag contained  almost 200 grams of heroin,  with a

            street value of about $26,000.

                                         II.

                      We address Marshall's claims seriatim.
                                                   ________

            Exculpatory Evidence Claim
            __________________________

                      Marshall  asserts  that  he  had  a  micro-cassette

            recorder, switched to the  "on" position, in the room  at the

            time of his arrest,  that the tape captured what  happened in

            the  room both before and  during the arrival  of the police,

            and  that the  tape  would exculpate  him.   It  would  prove

            exculpatory in at  least two  senses, he submits:   it  would

            show that he  and Dantzler  were in fact  talking about  rock

            concert promotions, not  drug dealing, and  it would tend  to

                                         -4-
                                          4

            support his version of  the facts -- which  differs radically

            from  the  officers'  version   --  relevant  to  his  Fourth

            Amendment  claims.    There  is  some  room  for  skepticism:

            whatever his  conversation with  Dantzler, the drugs  were in

            his room, and on the motion to suppress, the court found that

            he had consented to  the officers' request to enter  his room

            before they entered the room.  Nonetheless, the government is
            ______

            obligated  to  produce exculpatory  evidence to  a defendant.

            Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
            _____    ________

                      We set the factual  stage.  Marshall testified that

            he recorded  his conversation  with Dantzler about  a concert

            they  were  promoting and  that  he  left the  tape  recorder

            running when he left the hotel room to go to the parking lot.

            This was done,  he said,  to keep track  of whether  Dantzler

            used  his telephone.  He  says the recorder  would still have

            been running when he returned to the room and that one of the

            detectives picked it up and made a remark about it.

                      The officers who  were present in  Marshall's hotel

            room  tell  a  different story.    DEA  Agent Mansolillo  and

            Detective Cross both testified  that they did not see  a tape

            recorder  in the room.  Detective Lauro indicated that he saw

            a "narrow" "electronic device" in the room, which he  thought

            "might have  been a tape  recorder."  Detective  Lauro denied

            picking  it up  or  saying anything  about  it.   The  fourth

            officer,  Detective Gerstmeyer, though cross-examined at some

                                         -5-
                                          5

            length by defense  counsel, was  never asked  whether he  had

            seen  a tape  recorder.   The officers  did seize  some small

            electronic equipment (two beepers, two portable phones, and a

            small calculator), but none of them remembered seizing a tape

            recorder.

                      Agent  Mansolillo took  control  of  the drugs  and

            other seized  evidence, but unfortunately did  not prepare an

            inventory.   Later, both  the prosecutor and  defense counsel

            examined  that evidence and did  not find a  tape recorder or

            tape.    The  court  asked  the  prosecutor  whether  he  had

            specifically questioned the officers  on the existence of the

            recorder;  he replied that he  had not.   The court requested

            that the prosecutor  do so.   The prosecutor  did check,  but

            with only two of the four officers.  The court instructed the

            prosecutor  to go back and check with the other two officers;

            the prosecutor failed to  do so, but defense counsel  did not

            pursue the issue any further.  The judge stated that he could

            not require the government to produce something which it said

            it  did  not have.    Defense counsel  did  cross-examine the

            officers  about  the tape  recorder  and  argued the  missing

            evidence theory to the jury.

                      Marshall's  exculpatory  evidence argument  has two

            predicates:   that the recorder and tape existed and that the

            contents of the tape were exculpatory.  His claim flounders.

                                         -6-
                                          6

                      Marshall  does  not argue  that the  government did

            possess  the tape recorder and  tape and destroyed  it in bad

            faith.   Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood,  488 U.S. 51 (1988).   He
                     ___ _______    __________

            does not  even argue  that  the government  removed the  tape

            recorder and tape from the hotel  room.  He simply says  that

            the  recorder was there, the government  agents were aware of

            it, the agents were the ones who seized the evidence, and the

            tape should have been produced.

                      United States v. Femia, 9 F.3d 990 (1st Cir. 1993),
                      _____________    _____

            which the government cites  as dispositive, does not directly

            address the issue here.  In  Femia, there was no dispute over
                                         _____

            whether certain  tape recordings  existed; the issue  was the

            consequences of the  government's inadvertent destruction  of

            the tapes.

                      The government also cites United States v. Pedraza,
                                                _____________    _______

            27  F.3d  1515 (10th  Cir.  1994), which  is  more pertinent.

            There the defendants claimed  that a government informant had

            taped  certain calls  and that  the government had  failed to

            produce  the tape recordings of  the calls.   Id. at 1526-27.
                                                          ___

            The  court  concluded  that the  defendants  "have  presented

            insufficient evidence  that the  government either  failed to

            turn over 'missing tapes,'  or that it destroyed them  in bad

            faith.  The fact  of the matter is, [defendants]  have failed

            to  produce any  convincing  evidence that  these tapes  ever

            existed."  Id.  at 1527.  The defendants' claim  was based on
                       ___

                                         -7-
                                          7

            an equivocal  statement from the informant  that he attempted

            to record all the calls.

                      Like the  court in Pedraza, we  think the defendant
                                         _______

            here bore the initial burden of persuading the district court

            that  there  was reason  to  believe  the recorder  and  tape

            existed.  He did not do so.  Absent a rare case in  which the

            government  may be in a better position than the defendant to

            disprove the existence of evidence claimed to be exculpatory,

            there  is   no  unfairness  in  placing  the  burden  on  the

            defendant.  It  is difficult for  the government to  disprove

            the existence of  something and easy for defendants  to claim

            that  something  existed and  was  exculpatory  but that  the

            government failed to preserve it.

                      Placing the initial burden on the defendant is also

            consistent with  the general law in the  area.  Even where it

            is  undisputed  that "missing  evidence"  exists,  it is  the

            defendant's  burden to  show that  the evidence  is material,

            that is,  that "there is  a reasonable probability  that, had

            the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the

            proceeding  would have  been  different."   United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985).
            ______

                      Defendants also  bear a  two-part burden to  show a

            constitutional   violation  when  the   government  fails  to

            preserve evidence on their  behalf.  California v. Trombetta,
                                                 __________    _________

            467  U.S. 479  (1984) (breath  alcohol test).    The "missing

                                         -8-
                                          8

            evidence"  must  possess  an  "exculpatory   value  that  was

            apparent before the  evidence was destroyed" and must  be "of

            such  a nature that the  defendant would be  unable to obtain

            comparable  evidence  by other  reasonably  available means."

            Id. at 489;  see also Femia,  9 F.3d at  993.  In Arizona  v.
            ___          ___ ____ _____                       _______

            Youngblood,  the Court imposed a third  burden on a defendant
            __________

            where   the   potentially  exculpatory   evidence   has  been

            destroyed: that of showing the government acted  in bad faith

            in  destroying the evidence.   488  U.S. at  58.   Under this

            precedent, absent some unusual situation, the initial  burden

            is  on  the defendant  to show  the  evidence existed.   That

            burden was not satisfied here.

                      The  related  evidentiary claim  that  the district

            court  improperly limited the  cross-examination of Detective

            Lauro, as beyond the scope of direct, is without merit.

            Fourth Amendment Claims
            _______________________

                      Marshall makes two Fourth Amendment  arguments: (1)

            that he did not  consent to have  the police enter his  room,

            and therefore all evidence that came from the room was seized

            illegally, and (2) that he  was under de facto arrest.   Both

            contentions require  that Marshall's version of  the facts be

            accepted and the government's version rejected.  The district

            court's factual determinations depended in large part on whom

            the court believed, as the testimony of the witnesses painted

            two very different scenarios.  The district court disbelieved

                                         -9-
                                          9

            Marshall's version.  Factual findings by the judge may not be

            reversed   unless  clearly  erroneous.     United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Cleveland, 1997 WL 61397, *7 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 1997).  There
            _________

            can  be no  clear error  where factual  findings turn  on the

            credibility  of the  witnesses who  appear before  the judge.

            United States v. Cruz Jimenez, 894 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _____________    ____________

            Defendant  having consented,  there  is  no Fourth  Amendment

            issue  regarding  the  seized  evidence.   United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Zapata, 18 F.3d 971 (1st Cir. 1994). 
            ______

                      The  district  court  also  disbelieved  Marshall's

            testimony  on which he relies for the de facto arrest theory.

            There being no  error in the finding  that Marshall consented

            to the  officers' request  to  enter his  room, the  district

            court's  conclusion that  there  was no  de  facto arrest  is

            hardly clear error.

                      For  the same reasons, we  uphold the denial of the

            motion  to  suppress the  drugs.   The  trial judge  chose to

            believe  the  testimony  of  the  officers,  who  provided  a

            sufficient predicate.

            Motion to Suppress Marshall's Statements.
            ________________________________________

                      Marshall   argues  that   the   court  abused   its

            discretion  in  refusing  to  hear  his  motion  to  suppress

            statements he made before  the drugs were found in  his room.

            The district court found that Marshall had waived this motion

            by failing to make it in a timely fashion.  We agree. 

                                         -10-
                                          10

                      Marshall  filed the  motion to  suppress statements

            two months after  the date  the motions were  due.   Marshall

            also  did  not  object  to  the  statements  when  they  were

            introduced into evidence.   Because Marshall  failed properly

            to raise the  issue in the district court, we do not consider

            it.  United States v. Nunez, 19 F.3d 719 (1st Cir. 1994).  We
                 _____________    _____

            add  that the motion is  premised on Marshall's argument that

            he did not give consent  to enter his room and, as  a result,

            he was in custody and should have been informed of his rights

            under  Miranda v. Arizona, 384  U.S. 436 (1966).   Thus, even
                   _______    _______

            had there  not been  waiver, the argument  would have  failed

            because  the  court  determined  the  consent  issue  against

            Marshall.

            Grand Jury Testimony
            ____________________

                      The testimony given by DEA  Agent Mansolillo varied

            slightly  at trial from the testimony he had given before the

            grand jury about exactly where the bag of drugs was found and

            about  the  sequence  of   actions  by  a  Providence  police

            lieutenant who was  in the  room.  The  agent was  thoroughly

            cross-examined  on the  point.   It appears  that this  is an

            instance of  confusion or mistake  in the agent's  grand jury

            testimony,  and there is nothing  in the record  before us to

            suggest  perjury.   The dispute  about where  the drugs  were

            found  in the room was largely  immaterial to the indictment:

                                         -11-
                                          11

            whether the drugs  were under  the mattress or  not does  not

            undermine the charge of possession with intent to distribute.

                      Even  if there  were  an error  in  the grand  jury

            process, and we do not suggest there was one, defendant had a

            fair  trial,  and  the  verdict  renders  any  error  at  the

            preliminary stage  harmless now.  United  States v. Mechanik,
                                              ______________    ________

            475 U.S. 66, 72-73 (1986).

            Prosecutor's Closing Argument
            _____________________________

                      To   understand   Marshall's   objection   to   the

            prosecutor's summation,  the procedural history  of the  case

            must  be recalled.  This  is Marshall's second  trial; in the

            first  trial, he was acquitted  of a charge  of conspiracy to

            distribute drugs.

                      Marshall  says  that   the  prosecutor   improperly

            accused him of a conspiracy in the face of an acquittal, that

            the  prosecutor relied on facts not in evidence, and that the

            prosecutor improperly vouched for a  witness.  The first  two

            points are related.  

                      While   the  prosecutor   never   used   the   word

            "conspiracy,"  and  never  referred  to the  prior  trial  or

            charges, Marshall says  that he  did so in  essence with  the

            following argument:

                      I submit to you that the two of them were
                      working   together   and  this   is  what
                      happened.   That the drugs  were flown in
                      from Chicago that day.

                      . . . .

                                         -12-
                                          12

                      The defendant met Dantzler, the other man
                      who  brought the  drugs in  from Chicago.
                      And they set up together in that room and
                      the plan, I submit  to you, was for them,
                      for Marshall to be the middleman for  the
                      sale of  those  drugs, the  wholesale  of
                      those drugs to people in Providence.

                      Marshall relies  on United  States v. McBride,  862
                                          ______________    _______

            F.2d 1316  (8th Cir. 1988),  where the Eighth  Circuit upheld

            the trial  court's discretionary ruling awarding  a new trial

            due to  three trial  errors.   One of  the errors involved  a

            statement  made  by  a  prosecutor in  final  argument  which

            appeared  to  refer to  counts  previously  dismissed and  to

            conflict with  the  evidence.    Id.  at  1318.    Marshall's
                                             ___

            argument  is not  frivolous, but,  on balance,  we think  the

            prosecution  did  not exceed  the  bounds.   The  presence of

            Dantzler in the room and the quantity of drugs fairly support

            the  "with intent  to distribute"  portion of  the possession

            charge.

                      The  prosecutor's  words  suggested,  we  think,  a

            permissible  inference from  the evidence produced  at trial,

            and  were  not a  reference to  the  conspiracy charge.   The

            statement was within the allowable scope of argument.  United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. Ovalle-Marquez, 36 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 1994).  Even
            ______     ______________

            if the prosecutor's remarks were an improper veiled reference

            to   the  conspiracy  charge,   they  were  not  sufficiently

            egregious to warrant a reversal of the verdict.

                                         -13-
                                          13

                      The   argument  about  improperly  vouching  for  a

            witness  is  based on  three  portions  of the  prosecution's

            closing:

                      Mr.  Marshall, in  effect,  has  said  by
                      telling the version he is  saying, he, in
                      effect, has said to  you, the police  are
                      not telling  you  the truth.   That  they
                      have  come in  here  and  taken the  oath
                      about  what  happened,  and they  haven't
                      told you the truth under oath.

                      . . . .

                      They say, I submit to you, they have told
                      the    story    the    way    it    truly
                      unfolded . . . .

                      . . . .

                      So, I ask you  in choosing between  these
                      versions think carefully  about what  the
                      police  could have  done  if  these  men,
                      Steven Cross,  Detective Lauro, Detective
                      Gerstmeyer, Detective Mansolillo had been
                      people  who  would  deliberately come  in
                      here and  tell you  the truth.   Yes, you
                      will hear undoubtedly  in summation  that
                      Detective  Mansolillo  made a  mistake in
                      the  Grand Jury.   People  make mistakes,
                      and he corrected it here.  All right.

            Defendant  did not object to  what he now  attacks as witness

            vouching,  and so  our review  in this  context is  for plain

            error.  United States v. Grabiec, 96 F.3d  549, 550 (1st Cir.
                    _____________    _______

            1996); United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1187-88 (1st
                   _____________    _________

            Cir.  1993).   These  first two  comments  do not,  we think,

            amount to  improper vouching.  United  States v. Cruz-Kuilan,
                                           ______________    ___________

            75 F.3d  59, 62  (1st  Cir. 1996)  (holding  that it  is  not

            vouching  for  prosecutor to  say  that jury  should  come to

                                         -14-
                                          14

            believe  on the evidence that the events occurred the way the

            government's witnesses said they did).

                      The  last statement  is  simply too  garbled to  be

            vouching.  We  assume what  the prosecutor meant  to say  was

            that the Providence  police would not permit  its officers to

            deliberately tell lies.   He said, as  best we can tell,  the

            opposite.  Defendant has  no complaint.  Even if  the remarks

            were  inappropriate,  an  inappropriate  comment   is  not  a

            reversible  error unless  it is  likely to have  affected the

            outcome  of   the  trial.     United  States   v.  Cartagena-
                                          ______________       __________

            Carrasquillo,  70  F.3d 706,  713  (1st  Cir.  1995).   These
            ____________

            comments did not likely affect the outcome of the trial.

                      It is an oft-heard complaint that the prosecutor is

            putting  his personal endorsement on the scale.  Of course he

            should not do so, but there are two sides to this.  Not every

            factual  recitation in the  prosecutor's argument  must start

            with a personal  disclaimer.   It is one  thing to  emphasize

            personal endorsement.   It is  another for the  prosecutor to

            refer  to the  evidence  in factual  form  as he  goes  along

            without  constant qualification.   The  line, of  course, may

            sometimes be close.  But an excellent test is whether counsel

            contemporaneously  thinks  the  line  has been  crossed,  and

            objects, which,  in turn, enables  the court to  instruct the

            jury.   In the absence of such objections, plain error review

                                         -15-
                                          15

            is  called for.  There is no  plain error here.  See Grabiec,
                                                             ___ _______

            96 F.3d at 550.

                      The conviction is affirmed.
                                        ________

                                         -16-
                                          16