United States v. Cisneros
14-1440
10th Cir.Feb 8, 2017Background
- Ricky Cisneros was tried alone on a single-count conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine after a 22-count indictment; he was convicted and appealed.
- Co-conspirator Patricio Archuleta was murdered before trial; the district court barred evidence linking Cisneros to the murder but allowed general mention of Archuleta’s death as context.
- Multiple unindicted co-conspirators (Mendoza, Cole, Malmgren, Chauarin) testified that Archuleta sold meth, that Cisneros supplied or dealt with him, and that financial disputes existed between them.
- The prosecution referenced Archuleta’s murder during opening and elicited testimony contextualizing timing of drug-sourcing relative to Archuleta’s death; defense objected at points but not to all remarks.
- In rebuttal the prosecutor made emotive remarks about Cisneros ruining lives; defense moved for mistrial.
- A juror voiced fear about a spectator and was excused; Cisneros moved for mistrial and for inquiry of the entire panel, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of references to Archuleta's murder | References should be excluded under Rule 403 as prejudicial | Court allowed limited mention as intrinsic/contextual evidence | Admission was within discretion; not an abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (references tying Cisneros to murder and closing remarks) | Repeated violations and improper rebuttal comments deprived Cisneros of a fair trial | Any error was invited/isolated and remediable; evidence of guilt was substantial | Even if misconduct occurred, errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence (no drugs seized) | Lack of physical evidence undermines conviction | Conspiracy can be proven by agreement and circumstantial witness testimony | Jury credibility findings upheld; conviction sustained without physical seizure |
| Jury impartiality after juror safety concern | Failure to question whole panel was an abuse of discretion and violated Sixth Amendment | Single juror denied discussing personal fear with others; no evidence of panel taint | District court did not abuse discretion in declining full-panel inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Portilla-Quezada, 469 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir.) (admission of co-conspirator murder as intrinsic evidence may be permissible with limiting instructions)
- United States v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir.) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (Sup. Ct.) (standard on prosecutorial misconduct affecting fair trial)
- United States v. Sierra-Ledesma, 645 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Pulido-Jacobo, 377 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir.) (harmless-error framework for prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Martinez-Nava, 838 F.2d 411 (10th Cir.) (factors for assessing prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672 (10th Cir.) (appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility)
- United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (Sup. Ct.) (conspiracy proven by agreement, not necessarily physical evidence)
- Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of conspiracy and agreement inference)
- United States v. Rangel-Arreola, 991 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir.) (agreement may be inferred from circumstances)
- Mu’min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (Sup. Ct.) (trial court discretion for juror-related decisions)
- United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir.) (broad district court discretion on juror bias questions)
- United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.) (review standard for juror safety inquiries)
- United States v. Blitch, 622 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.) (failure to individually voir dire when multiple jurors expressed safety fears may be error)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to district court on jury impartiality determinations)