Court Opinion

ID: 9481055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:06:28.273221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:47.877455
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. Though I agree with the majority that the evidence was insufficient to justify convicting defendant Becerra-Flores, I cannot agree that the addition of Mieres-Borges’ post-arrest exculpatory statement tips the scales so far in favor of conviction that we can conclude that the jury could reasonably find Mieres-Borges guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Reasonable doubt” is defined “in terms of the kind of doubt that would make a person hesitate to act.” Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 138, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). Our Circuit has defined the exacting standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” as “proof of a ‘convincing character’ sufficient to justify reliance ‘without hesitation’ in the conduct of one’s ‘most important affairs.’ ” United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d 567, 571 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (quoting jury charge approved of in that case). The prosecution has the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged.” Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 210, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2327, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). The crime of possession with intent to distribute with which Mieres-Borges was charged requires that the prosecution show, by proof of such convincing character that it justifies the jury’s reliance upon it without hesitation, three essential elements: “(1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.” United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir.1983); see also 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 1903(a) (proof of violation of this statute, with which Mieres-Borges was specifically charged, also requires that the crime occur on board a vessel). To prove the crime of conspiracy, the government must prove by the same standard three more essential elements: (1) “an agreement existed between two or more people to commit a crime,” (2) "the accused had knowledge of at least the essential objectives of that agreement,” and (3) “armed with that knowledge, he voluntarily joined or participated in the illegal venture.” United States v. Pantoja-Soto, 739 F.2d 1520, 1525 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1008, 105 S.Ct. 1369, 84 L.Ed.2d 389 (1985).
Our standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to reverse the conviction if “there is a lack of substantial evidence ... from which a reasonable factfinder could find guilt [without hesitation].” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 740 (11th Cir.1989). While the fact-finder need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the evidence must be declared insufficient “where such evidence is wholly consistent with an obvious and reasonable innocent interpretation.” Id. Rather than demonstrating guilt, Mi-eres-Borges’ exculpatory statement more sensibly implicates an innocent explanation of what the defendants were doing in proximity to the cocaine. The defendants were in the area; an unfamiliar plane flew overhead dropping packages; they fished them out of the water and examined them; they decided to get rid of them by stacking them on the beach.
Mieres-Borges’ explanation goes a long way toward explaining some of the peculiarities of this case. First, on the evening of November 7th the customs pilot ob*664served the smugglers’ plane drop at least twenty bales, but only eleven were found on the beach. If the defendants picked up some of these bales out of curiosity, it would make sense that once they realized that the bales contained contraband and began to appreciate the consequences of their possession of the bales they would not pursue the remaining ones. Second, there was testimony at trial by the agents that, in the twelve hours between the sighting of the boat on the evening of November 7th and the sighting the next morning, the defendants’ boat could have traveled hundreds of miles. But the pilot spotted the boat on the morning of the 8th only 30 miles from the drop site. If the defendants were the smugglers, it makes no sense that they would stay in the area of the drop site, waiting for law enforcement officers to discover them. Though they may not have known that they had been observed on the evening of the 7th, it still is not typical criminal behavior to dally at the scene of the crime for twelve hours. Third, it remains unclear why the defendants, if they were actually the smugglers, would have left the cocaine in plain view on the beach, totally unprotected. Though Cay Sal Bank is an undeveloped island, there was testimony that it is a popular fishing and diving spot. It seems that the true smugglers would be very interested in protecting and concealing their investment. But the Coast Guard did not even find a weapon on board the defendants’ boat. Fourth, though the agent testified that Mi-eres-Borges told him in his post-arrest statement that the defendants had examined the packages, there was no evidence that the defendants ever opened any of the packages. On cross-examination the agent clarified that Mieres-Borges had merely stated that they had examined the packages and then decided to put them on the beach. Mieres-Borges apparently did not say that he opened any of the packages. The government did not show that any of the bales found on the beach had been opened. Moreover, there was testimony that the Coast Guard did not find even any residue of cocaine on the boat in spite of an extensive search. If the defendants had opened a package, as drug dealers normally would for testing upon receipt of a delivery, then there surely would have been some residue to be found somewhere on board. In sum, the most reasonable conclusion in this case is that the defendants were not the intended recipients of the dropped bales.
The government did not meet its burden in presenting evidence on each element of the charges which would allow a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt or “without hesitation.” The exculpatory statement did in fact link Mieres-Borges to the cocaine, as the majority points out, thus showing he had been in possession of it. But the government never put on any direct evidence showing intent to distribute. The crime of possession with intent to distribute may be proven through circumstantial evidence. Vera, 701 F.2d at 1357. But here, where there is a reasonable and innocent explanation of the circumstances, to infer intent is simply too long a leap. This is a leap which surely cannot be made “without hesitation.” Likewise, the evidence of a conspiracy was totally circumstantial. Though proof of conspiracy by circumstantial evidence is also permissible under Vera, and many other cases, it is a long leap to conclude that there existed an agreement between the three defendants and that Mieres-Borges knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy. In sum, Mi-eres-Borges’ exculpatory statement seems to make at least as much sense out of the evidence as the conclusion that the defendants were smuggling drugs. The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an exacting one. I cannot say that a jury could find “without hesitation” that the government has proven each of the elements of these crimes. I therefore would hold the evidence against Mieres-Borges to be insufficient. Consequently, I would not reach the sentencing issue.