United States v. Delgado
631 F.3d 685
5th Cir.2012Background
- Delgado owned TJ Trucking; Vasquez, a Mexican resident, acted as a trusted supplier/informant for years and was paid for information.
- Delgado offered $10,000 to Vasquez to commingle 500 pounds of marijuana in a TJ Trucking broccoli shipment; Vasquez reported to ICE and cooperated.
- Recorded conversations and undercover plan showed Delgado coordinating dual bills of lading and methods to conceal marijuana in a shipment destined for North Carolina, with possible later involvement of another supplier.
- LAW ENFORCEMENT executed a staged arrest at Delgado’s gated property; thirty-four bundles of marijuana were found in the truck cab, along with weapons and other items; Delgado claimed she did not know the marijuana and blamed her driver.
- Delgado was charged with possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy; jury convicted on both counts with concurrent 100-month terms; appellate panel initially vacated but en banc affirmed convictions.
- The en banc court addresses sufficiency of the evidence and multiple alleged trial errors, ultimately affirming the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence | Delgado contends no true agreement existed | Evidence shows only buyer-seller relation, not conspiratorial plan | Conspiracy conviction supported; no reversible error on sufficiency claim |
| Plain-error review of forfeited insufficiency claims | Olano framework should apply to forfeited claims | Strict standard requires plain, obvious error+ | 4-prong plain-error test governs forfeited insufficiency claims; record supported conviction; no reversal on this basis |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Statement that Delgado lied affected verdict | Comment was inferential and harmless given strong evidence | No reversible error; not plain error given context, strength of evidence, and lack of persisting prejudice |
| Need for Sears or buyer-seller instructions | Sears instruction required due to informant involvement | Not necessary; evidence shows two co-conspirators beyond informant; instruction not warranted | No reversible error for omission of Sears instruction; adequate instructions given and evidence supported conspiracy against multiple non-governmental actors |
| Cumulative error | Collective errors violated fair trial rights | Errors, if any, were not cumulative under the record | Cumulative-error doctrine not satisfied; no reversal based on cumulative errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 F.3d 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes sufficiency standard: reasonable-doubt review, not no-evidence rule)
- U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (four-prong plain-error test for forfeited errors; Rule 52(b) codifies plain-error review)
- Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1936) (plain-error doctrine origin; exception for obvious errors in criminal trials)
- Silber v. United States, 370 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1962) (plain-error framework for unpreserved errors)
- Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703 (U.S. 1943) (charges of conspiracy not proved by piling inference upon inference)
- Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1965) (instruction on government informant cannot be co-conspirator; sua sponte Sears instruction discussed)
- Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1905) (fundamental duty to prove all elements; due-process safeguard against insufficient evidence)
- Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1896) (plain-error doctrine origins; early theme of correcting fundamental errors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies plain-error standards; caution against creating exceptions to Rule 52(b))