United States v. Diaz-Castro
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9622
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- FBI Operation Guard Shack recruited Puerto Rico Police Department officers as confidential informants to lure suspects into sham drug deals for pay.
- Diaz-Castro, a PRPD officer, joined a February 4, 2010 deal after being invited by Kento, a fellow officer.
- At the February 4 deal, Diaz-Castro was in a security role with a firearm; the deal involved eight kilograms of cocaine that were fake.
- Diaz-Castro later recruited Ramon Benítez-Falcon to provide protection for a second deal on March 12, 2010; Diaz-Castro brought a handgun since his own weapon had been seized earlier.
- The March 12 deal at the Conrad Hotel involved Diaz-Castro and Benítez-Falcon; a bag claimed to contain nine kilograms of cocaine was handed to the buyer; Diaz-Castro again received $2,000.
- Indictment returned September 16, 2010, charging Counts 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16 related to two conspiracies, attempts, and firearms in relation to drug trafficking; video evidence supported the charged acts.
- Diaz-Castro was convicted by jury on all six counts in December 2011 and sentenced in July 2012 to a total of 40 years (concurrent drug sentences, consecutive firearms sentences).
- Diaz-Castro timely appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence, entrapment/duress defenses, closing arguments, and multiplicity of conspiracy counts; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Diaz-Castro contends evidence insufficient for guilt on all counts. | Diaz-Castro argues insufficient proof of voluntary participation and may request entrapment/duress defenses. | Evidence, including video and testimony, suffices for all counts. |
| Entrapment, derivative entrapment, and duress | Diaz-Castro seeks duress and entrapment-based defenses and jury instructions. | Government pressure or manipulation via middleman justified derivative entrapment and consent to participation. | No viable defenses; motions in limine upheld and no entrapment/duress defenses warranted; no derivative entrapment applicable. |
| Closing argument conduct | Prosecution allegedly shifted burden and vouched for witnesses; improper closing statements. | Defense challenges as prosecutorial misdirection. | Some comments improper but cured by curative instructions; error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Multiplicity of conspiracy counts | Two conspiracies charged; claims of single conspiracy to reduce charges. | Two conspiracies and two § 924(c) predicates should be treated as one. | Two conspiracies properly charged; § 924(c) convictions proper for two separate drug crimes. |
| Firearms charges multiplicity | Question whether two § 924(c) counts were multiplicitous. | Second firearms conviction should not be separate given a single underlying offense. | Not multiplicious; two separate drug crimes under § 924(c) support two firearms counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz-Maldonado, 727 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2013) (stings involving police informants and corruption networks (First Circuit))
- United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014) (context of Guard Shack and related prosecutions)
- United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1987) (entrapment standard and related evidentiary analysis)
- United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (derivative entrapment framework and five defining features)
- United States v. Bradley, 820 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1987) (derivative entrapment discussed; pressure through intermediary challenging)
- United States v. Peña-Lora, 225 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2000) (multiplicity and consecutive § 924(c) sentences)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (jury findings and prior convictions; not controlling here)