United States v. Adres Campo
840 F.3d 1249
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Andres Campo led an international firearms‑trafficking ring in Miami (2008–2012) that used straw purchasers and concealed parts for shipment to Colombia.
- Erik Comesana, an employee, procured and packed firearms for Campo, was arrested on trafficking charges in 2011, and was released on bond with monitoring.
- After Erik’s complaint referenced “Campos,” Campo grew nervous, threatened Erik (through intermediaries), and paid legal fees; relationships soured thereafter.
- On May 27, 2011, Erik failed to return from a planned meeting; Kristian (Erik’s brother) discovered blood in a warehouse; Erik’s body was later found burned; autopsy showed two gunshot wounds and blunt trauma.
- Investigators recovered DNA, shell casings, projectiles, bloody clothing, cell‑phone records placing phones near the warehouse and later near the body, and testimony that Campo bragged about killing Erik.
- A jury convicted Campo of conspiracy and substantive counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and §§ 924(c)/924(j) (murder to prevent communication with law enforcement), multiple firearms‑trafficking counts, and possession while a fugitive; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Campo's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder counts (Counts 1–4) | Evidence was insufficient to prove Campo conspired to and did kill Erik to prevent communication with law enforcement or that he used/ discharged a firearm causing death | Multiple witnesses, DNA on gloves implicating Campo/Rios, cell‑phone location and timing, ballistics and physical evidence, and Campo’s post‑crime admissions provided overwhelming circumstantial proof | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for export intent (Count 11) | No proof Campo intended to export the AR‑15 upper found in his trunk on arrest | Context (Avianca use, sawhorse concealment notes, trafficking methods) and related documents support intent to export | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of intent to export |
| Admission of Kristian’s lay opinion (who killed Erik) | Admission of Kristian’s statement that "Andres" killed his brother was inadmissible lay opinion/speculation under Rule 701 | Kristian’s testimony reflected his state of mind based on direct perceptions (blood in warehouse, Campo’s threats, vehicle presence) and was properly admissible or harmless if error | No plain error: testimony admissible or, if error, did not affect substantial rights |
| Double jeopardy re: consecutive sentences under § 924(c) and § 924(j) (Counts 3 & 4) | Sentencing on both counts violated Double Jeopardy because § 924(c) (discharge) is a lesser‑included offense of § 924(j) (death resulting from § 924(c)) | Circuit precedent permits cumulative punishments when statutes authorize them; § 924(j) does not preclude separate § 924(c) punishment | No plain error: imposition of separate sentences affirmed (binding circuit authority supports result) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
- United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir.) (sufficiency review and refusing to adopt mere reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- United States v. Marshall, 173 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.) (limits on lay opinion testimony under Rule 701)
- United States v. Julian, 633 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.) (discussion of § 924(c) and § 924(j) sentencing and cumulative punishments)
- United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (preferable forum for ineffective‑assistance claims is § 2255)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (ineffective‑assistance claims are typically raised in collateral proceedings rather than on direct appeal)