United States v. Antonio Valdez
406 U.S. App. D.C. 183
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2009 law enforcement investigated Mouloukou Toure for heroin distribution; surveillance and wiretaps showed interactions with Antonio Valdez ("Tony") and David Diaz Garcia.
- Valdez, Toure, Diaz Garcia and others were arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin; Valdez later was also charged with witness tampering for allegedly threatening Diaz Garcia while jailed together.
- At trial Toure and Diaz Garcia (both cooperating plea witnesses) testified for the government; intercepted calls and surveillance corroborated their testimony. One call had Toure addressing Valdez as "Montana."
- The government introduced Valdez’s 2004 Maryland cocaine-distribution conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to show knowledge and intent. The district court denied Valdez’s motion to sever the conspiracy and tampering counts.
- During closing the prosecutor compared the "Montana" reference to the Scarface character Tony Montana; defense objected. Jury convicted Valdez of narcotics conspiracy but acquitted him of witness tampering.
- At sentencing the court declined safety-valve relief (Valdez had not debriefed) and ruled it could not apply a Smith departure below the statutory mandatory minimum; Valdez received 240 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior 2004 drug conviction (Rule 404(b)) | Valdez: prior conviction was unfair propensity evidence and irrelevant because knowledge/intent not disputed | Government: prior conviction bears on knowledge and intent and was admissible for that purpose | District court did not abuse discretion admitting the 2004 conviction; limiting instruction given |
| Severance of conspiracy and witness-tampering counts | Valdez: jury’s knowledge of tampering charge tainted conspiracy verdict; severance required | Government: evidence of each offense would be admissible in separate trials, so no prejudice from joinder | Denial of severance affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial closing remark comparing Valdez to Tony Montana (Scarface) | Valdez: prosecution referenced evidence not admitted and made prejudicial insinuations about his role | Government: remark was brief, tied to witness’s use of the nickname, and not central to proof | Remarks were improper but not substantially prejudicial given strength of evidence, mitigation by rebuttal and jury instructions |
| Sentencing: safety-valve eligibility and Smith departure | Valdez: sentencing should be remanded because (1) safety-valve issue unresolved and counsel ineffective for not pressing it, (2) should receive Smith departure as deportable alien | Government: Valdez did not debrief so safety-valve unavailable; Smith departure cannot reduce below statutory mandatory minimum | No remand. Safety-valve unavailable; counsel not ineffective for failing to press meritless claim; court lacked authority to apply Smith departure below statutory minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pettiford, 517 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir.) (review of Rule 404(b) admission for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Gooch, 665 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir.) (review of denial of severance for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Maddox, 156 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir.) (counsel may not argue evidence not admitted at trial)
- United States v. Small, 74 F.3d 1276 (D.C. Cir.) (framework for prosecutorial-comment prejudice analysis)
- Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061 (D.C. Cir.) (prosecutor may not refer to evidence not admitted)
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for substantial prejudice review of prosecutorial error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance requires showing of deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir.) (permissible downward departure for deportable aliens under Guidelines context)
- United States v. Motley, 587 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir.) (district court may impose below-mandatory sentence only for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e))
- United States v. Gales, 603 F.3d 49 (D.C. Cir.) (safety-valve eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f))
- United States v. Sayan, 968 F.2d 55 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to press meritless claim is not ineffective assistance)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor must not make improper suggestions or insinuations)