United States v. Andino
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24687
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- In June 2008, customs intercepted cocaine in a package addressed to Andino and redirected it to ICE for a controlled delivery.
- During the controlled delivery, a postal inspector left the package with a woman; Andino later retrieved the package and transported it to a neighboring building before arrest.
- Andino confessed that a man named Mikey (Keithroy Davis) instructed him to receive and move the package, promising protection, and that he believed the package contained drugs, though he claimed marijuana instead.
- Andino and Davis were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine; Davis pled guilty, Andino proceeded to trial.
- The district court and parties debated the scienter standard for conspiracy, with Andino urging a cocaine-specific knowledge standard and the government arguing a broader drug-knowledge standard.
- The district court ultimately instructed the jury that Andino needed to be found guilty of a cocaine conspiracy, but the specific jury instructions on scienter varied during proceedings and were ultimately condensed into questions presented to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy scienter requires cocaine-specific knowledge | Andino; government | Andino | No; only general intent to distribute a controlled substance suffices |
| Whether indictment and trial statements forced cocaine-specific scienter | Andino | Andino | No; Hassan does not require type-specific scienter when directly involved |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support cocaine-specific conspiracy under the proper scienter standard | Andino | Andino | Evidence satisfied the scienter burden under the generalized drug-conspiracy standard |
| Whether the district court erred by not giving Andino's proposed marijuana-conspiracy acquittal instruction | Andino | Andino | Instruction was legally incorrect and rejected under Prawl |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Collado-Gomez, 834 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1987) (statutory scienter not tied to penalty; general knowledge suffices)
- United States v. King, 345 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2003) (statutory scienter modulates conduct, not penalty)
- United States v. Chalarca, 95 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 1996) (direct participation in drug transaction negates need for foreseeability of quantity)
- United States v. Oluigbo, 375 F. App’x 61 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order; direct personal participation negates foreseeability requirement)
- United States v. Wade, 217 F.App’x 77 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order; direct personal participation standard applies)
- United States v. Abdulle, 564 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (no requirement of type-specific scienter where defendant directly participates)
- United States v. Morgan, 385 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2004) (participation in conspiracy with knowledge of general objective; variable scienter)
- United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2006) (conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) requires knowledge/foreseeability of drug type and quantity)
- United States v. Santos, 541 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2008) (conspiracy can require foreseeability of drug type/quantity depending on theory)
- United States v. Martinez, 987 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1993) (similar foreseeability considerations in conspiracy cases)