United States v. Delgado-Marrero
744 F.3d 167
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Delgado sought to present Rosa-Valentín’s testimony to support an entrapment defense; the district court excluded the testimony under Rule 608(b) and 404(b)
- Rivera challenged post-verdict jury form on drug quantity arguing Alleyne requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; district court instructed post-verdict special question
- The district court denied a continuance and the Brady/Giglio disclosures were provided late, prompting challenges to trial fairness
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rosa-Valentín testimony admissibility and entrapment defense impact | Delgado | Delgado sought admissibility to support entrapment defense | Conviction vacated; new trial remanded |
| Alleyne plain-error in post-verdict drug-quantity verdict | Rivera | District court erred by not instructing beyond reasonable doubt | Alleyne error; remand for resentencing under 841(b)(1)(C) or for new trial |
| Remedy for Alleyne error—new trial vs. resentencing | Government | Remand appropriate option; not automatically new trial | Remand option to either resentencing under default 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) or remand for a new trial |
| Denial of trial continuance and Brady/Giglio disclosure prejudice | Rivera | Continuance denied; prejudice to defense | No reversible error based on findings of insufficient prejudice; affirmed on continuance |
| Voir dire and other evidentiary challenges | Rivera | Voir dire adequacy; evidentiary rulings | Voir dire and isolated evidentiary issues not sufficient to overturn; preserved issues not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Avilés-Colón, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (verdict instructions must convey beyond a reasonable doubt where drug quantity is essential)
- United States v. Pérez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (linkage between drug quantity and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required)
- United States v. Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2005) (entrapment framework and lack of predisposition analysis guidance)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2005) (remand remedies when drug quantity not properly submitted to jury)