United States v. Diaz
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6796
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Diaz was convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kg+ of marijuana.
- Agents unloaded marijuana from a trailer at a gas station in Dallas while Diaz watched as a lookout and later closed the van doors.
- Diaz was detained with Banegas members and found with keys to a Banegas vehicle.
- Indicted with seven others nearly two years after the incident; trial occurred in January 2010.
- Diaz was sentenced to 121 months and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause cross-examination limitations | Diaz argues restrictions violated his right to cross-examine | Diaz contends witnesses’ credibility could be challenged via immigration/employment lines | No violation; limitations were justified and not prejudicial |
| Mental-state testimony by a lay witness | Diaz argues Agent’s testimony was improper expert opinion on mental state | Diaz contends it improperly inferred mental state | Admissible lay opinion under Rule 701; harmless error given overwhelming evidence |
| Jury instruction omission | Diaz claims plain error from missing word in pattern instruction | Omission was inadvertent and quickly corrected; no constitutional violation | Not reversible plain error; overall charge cured potential confusion |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Diaz challenges inference of voluntary participation | Evidence shows Diaz acted as lookout and possessed keys, linking to conspiracy | Rational jury could find all elements beyond reasonable doubt |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Diaz argues sentence under 3553(a) factors was unreasonable | Sentence within Guidelines and balanced properly against factors | Within-Guidelines sentence; presumption of reasonableness upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555 (5th Cir.2006) (Confrontation Clause standard and harmless error analysis)
- United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.2008) (Limitations on cross-examination; prejudice)
- United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146 (5th Cir.2006) (Policy on cross-examination for credibility and relevance)
- United States v. Tansley, 986 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1993) (Bias/motive assessment in confrontational analysis)
- United States v. Restivo, 8 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.1993) (Abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings; prejudice standard)
- United States v. Hawkins, 661 F.2d 436 (5th Cir.1981) (Prejudice evaluation for cross-examination restrictions)
- United States v. Setser, 568 F.3d 482 (5th Cir.2009) (Harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir.2009) (Sufficiency review; de novo standard)
- United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.2010) (Lay opinion on mental state; admissibility under Rule 701)
- United States v. Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d 121 (5th Cir.2003) (Drug courier profiles; expert testimony boundaries)
- United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868 (5th Cir.2003) (Mental state in drug cases; expert versus lay opinion)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657 (5th Cir.2002) (Expert testimony on defendant’s knowledge; limits)
- United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541 (5th Cir.2007) (Sentencing within guidelines; reasonableness)
- United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.2008) (Presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (S. Ct.1999) (Plain-error review for jury instructions)