United States v. Báez-Martínez, 786 F.3d 121

Background

On March 29, 2012, police conducting license checks arrived at El Trapiche, Puerto Rico; officers observed Báez‑Martínez glance toward them and discard a fanny pack behind the bar.
Officer Serrano retrieved the fanny pack and found a loaded pistol (serial number obliterated), extra ammunition, and other small items; Báez‑Martínez was arrested after not answering whether he had a permit.
A federal grand jury charged Báez‑Martínez with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum.
Trial focused on whether Báez‑Martínez knowingly possessed the firearm; government presented the two officers, defense called family and acquaintances who testified they did not see a fanny pack or the defendant wearing one.
On appeal (new counsel), Báez‑Martínez argued prosecutorial misconduct: (1) prosecutor corrected/interpreted the court interpreter’s Spanish-to-English translations, and (2) prosecutor’s closing comments invited an adverse inference from the defendant’s silence; review was for plain error because no contemporaneous objections were made.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor commented on/interpreted court‑interpreter translations	Prosecutor’s unsolicited translation and objections relied on counsel’s understanding of Spanish and improperly bolstered witnesses; should have been objected to at sidebar	Such corrections were improper and prejudicial, violating the Jones Act translation framework and affecting credibility	Any translation commentary was not plain error: any mistake was harmless given corroborating interpreter testimony, trial court instructions, and lack of prejudice
Prosecutor’s references to testimony being “uncontested” (closing) — implied comment on defendant’s silence	Statements pointed to the fact that only officers were present at arrest and thus highlighted defendant’s failure to testify, violating Fifth Amendment	Statements were permissible argument that defense witnesses were not present at the arrest and therefore could not contradict the officers; also could be credibility‑boosting for government witnesses	Not plain error: remarks were reasonably read as about who was present and witness credibility; trial instructions (burden, presumption, no adverse inference) reduced any risk
Cumulative error from combined remarks	Even if each remark were minor, combined effect deprived defendant of fair trial	The remarks, singly and together, did not produce prejudice or undermine verdict	No cumulative error: aggregate of non‑prejudicial statements did not tip outcome

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Morales‑Madera, 352 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (interpreter’s translation is the evidence of record)
United States v. Powell, 771 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1985) (correction of interpreter translation can be improper)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework)
United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 (1988) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s silence)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibition on adverse comment on defendant’s silence)
United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (analysis of permissible closing argument vs. comment on silence)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (ambiguity in prosecutor remarks should not be construed in most damaging sense)
United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (jurors presumed to follow jury instructions)
Williams v. Drake, 146 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1998) (cumulative‑error doctrine requires aggregation of prejudicial errors)