Court Opinion

ID: 9843025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:24:36.156018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:25.779378
License: Public Domain

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent, and would reverse the conviction and remand for new trial.
The case turns on the brief conversation between defendant and the sheriff, at the point when defendant was arrested. The sheriff asked defendant, “What happened, Isidro?” Defendant replied, “I don’t know why these men are bringing me here.” He said nothing further. I would hold, contrary to the government’s assertion, that defendant’s comment either (i) was tantamount to silence, or (ii) was not inconsistent with his trial testimony. In either event, the prosecution’s comment on the statement was plain error entitling defendant to a reversal under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).
The statement could easily be deemed small-talk or casual conversation and hence *64tantamount to silence. If defendant had merely commented on the weather, for example, or had said something inconsequential like, “Hey, how are you doing today, Sheriff?”, surely we would not permit the prosecutor or the court to comment upon the fact that defendant did not also assert his innocence. In other words, it makes no sense that the test for whether a defendant is “silent” for purposes of Doyle and Miranda is whether the defendant utters any audible words. It would be illogical to prohibit comment, at trial, on a defendant’s absolute silence but to allow comment where a defendant mouths a few fairly meaningless, possibly extraneous words but does not add to those words a protestation of innocence.
Probably the better view, though, of Morales’s comment is that, rather than being tantamount to silence, it constitutes a statement that is consistent (or at the very least, not inconsistent) with his trial testimony that he was working undercover. Assume, in another context, a known law enforcement official who in fact is engaged in a coordinated undercover investigation. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, he is arrested by sheriff’s deputies. He is taken to the sheriff, who says, “What happened, Joe?” He replies, “I don’t know why these men are bringing me here.” We would not necessarily expect such a person to proclaim his innocence on the spot or to permit the judge and prosecutor to be able to comment on his “silence” if he did not.
The majority does not reach the question of whether defendant’s statement was inconsistent, since the majority concludes that there is no plain error. It suggests that the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that there is no “probability of a different result,” occasioned by the errors in the trial court, “sufficient to undermine confidence in the trial’s outcome” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
Were I to view the evidence de novo, I likely would agree that defendant’s story that he was engaged in undercover operations, in the majority’s words, “all but defies belief.” But the point is that apparently some of the jurors, infected with the comments of the prosecutor and the judge, did not think so.
During its deliberations, the jury sent a note stating (in less than perfect English) “Thet some of us can not a unanimous dissicion on this case. And I don’t belive thet it will be possible for us. to do so.” [Sic.] Although a unanimous verdict was later reached, it is evident from the jury’s note that it had difficulty in reaching its decision. (Earlier, the jury additionally had asked to re-listen to tapes that had been introduced into evidence.)1
I cannot say with the ease of the majority that, under these circumstances, the prosecutor’s and court’s improper comments upon the defendant’s exercise of his *65right to silence were harmless. They might very well have tipped the scales in favor of conviction in this case that apparently was a close one in the eyes of the jury.2
Accordingly, I believe there was plain error. The defendant can easily be retried, without the subject prejudicial comments. If the evidence of guilt is as overwhelming as the majority asserts, he in all likelihood will be re-convicted. I respectfully dissent.

. The dynamics of the jury deliberations are further shown by affidavits of two jurors filed with the district court after sentence was pronounced. They read as follows:
1. My name is Anna Barrera and I am 21 years old. I served a juror [sic] in The U. S. District Court involving defendant Isidro Morales. At first, my feeling was that Mr. Morales was not guilty but after the judge ordered the jury back into deliberation I felt that we were being pressured by some of the jurors to reach a guilty verdict.
There was alot [sic] of tension in the jury room because most of the jurors had a long way to drive to go home and they wanted to reach a decision by 5:00 P.M. We reached a guilty verdict but we did not all agree.
2. My name is Angela F. Cantu and I served on a federal jury in Brownsville in a case involving Isidro Morales, who was a defendant. I felt I was pressured into making a decision on the case before I was prepared to.. [sic] I felt sick about it afterwards. The other jurors said I couldn't be right but I still felt he was not guilty. I almost was angry because I thought what I had in my mind was right. When we can in with the verdict I still felt he was not guilty. I cried about what had happened. It was very painful to convict a man I thought was innocent.
The affidavits were attached to the defendant’s motion for release pending appeal. Although they apparently were received by the trial judge without objection from the government, their admissibility is questionable under Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). But even without the affidavits, it is obvious from the record that the jury had difficulty arriving at a unanimous verdict.

. We may reasonably assume that the questions by the judge himself had a special impact upon the jurors. For example, the following colloquy occurred at trial:
BY MR. GUERRA [the prosecutor]:
Q. So at the time you got arrested, the Sheriff was there and you didn’t say anything like, "Sheriff, there is a mistake,” or anything like that?
A. No, because he didn’t give me any chance. He just come over here and read me the rights.
THE COURT: But that’s a friend of yours, right? I mean, you participated in elections in Brooks County, right?
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: And he has probably come to you and asked you for help in the past with regard to elections and things like that, right? Sir?
THE WITNESS: How is that?
THE COURT: He has probably come and asked you for your support with regards to elections and other things in the past, has he not?
THE WITNESS: Well, he never asked for voters.
THE COURT: But he has come in the past and talked to you about—
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.
THE COURT: — either law enforcement or whatever, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, come to my house and drink a coke or so.
THE COURT: And you couldn't feel you could just — what’s his name?
THE WITNESS: Ramiro Castellano.
THE COURT: You couldn’t say, “Ramiro, this is a terrible mistake here. I was doing undercover work myself and I was trying to arrest these people.” You didn’t feel comfortable enough to say that?
THE WITNESS: The reason I didn’t ask him is because he just read the rights and left right away.
THE COURT: After he read the rights to you, he asked you whether you understood that? Isn’t that one of the procedures when someone reads your right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And when you read somebody their rights, you say something to the effect: "You have the right to remain silent. Any answers to any questions you answer may be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to request an attorney. And you have a right to stop the questioning at any point.” Those are the type of rights he read to you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: He had to wait for you to respond to some of these, is that right? He had to wait for you to say yes when he asked you about your rights?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if I said yes or no, because the man was in a hurry. He just grabbed me by the arm and put me in the car.
THE COURT: There was some time there, was there not, where you could have said something, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Well, maybe.