United States v. Elliot Rivera
780 F.3d 1084
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rivera loaned ~ $3.5M to Felipe Caldera and became beneficiary of a $5M life‑insurance policy on Caldera; Rivera had motive (financial loss and insurance) to want Caldera dead.
- Rivera solicited Ricardo Rodriguez to find a hit man, offering $100,000 and giving a $25,000 down payment; Rodriguez recruited Jorge (an FBI informant) who introduced Arturo (also an informant), leading to an FBI sting.
- After Rodriguez’s arrest, Rodriguez’s wife Lucienne cooperated with the FBI, wore a wire, recorded multiple conversations with Rivera, and negotiated $100,000 for Rodriguez’s silence and a purported tape; Rivera paid $20,000 and was arrested.
- At trial Rivera was convicted of murder‑for‑hire and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 based on Rodriguez’s testimony, the taped conversations, Rivera’s admissions on tape, and other corroborating evidence.
- Rivera appealed, arguing (1) admission of Lucienne’s recorded statements was hearsay; (2) improper admission of Lucienne’s lay‑opinion explanations of Rivera’s statements; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct via “were‑they‑lying” cross‑examination and closing‑argument comments attacking Rivera’s credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Rivera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded conversations (Lucienne’s statements) | Recordings admissible to show effect on hearer and to provide conversational context; Rivera’s own statements are admissions. | Lucienne’s out‑of‑court statements are hearsay and should have been excluded. | Court: Lucienne’s utterances were mostly non‑assertive or indisputably false and admitted to show effect on Rivera; not hearsay — no error. |
| Lay‑opinion testimony by Lucienne about meaning of Rivera’s statements | Lucienne, as participant, may explain ambiguous, abbreviated or coded statements under Rule 701 to aid jury understanding. | Such testimony was improper opinion evidence interpreting defendant’s statements. | Court: Admission proper — rationally based on perception, helpful to jury, not specialized; no abuse of discretion. |
| Prosecutor’s cross‑examination asking Rivera whether other witnesses were lying | Government can highlight inconsistencies between Rivera and witnesses on cross‑examination. | Such “were‑they‑lying” questions are improper (invade jury’s role, outside Rule 608) and prejudicial. | Court: Questions were improper but harmless given overwhelming independent evidence; conviction affirmed. |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument accusing Rivera of lies/inconsistency | Closing argument may urge jury to draw adverse inferences from inconsistencies; prosecutor framed conclusions from evidence. | Comments improperly vouched for witness credibility and attacked Rivera’s character. | Court: Remarks were permissible argument based on trial record (contrast of Rivera vs Rodriguez); no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1986) (out‑of‑court statements offered to show their effect on hearer are not hearsay)
- United States v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1992) (participant may clarify abbreviated or coded conversation with lay testimony)
- United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (limits on lay‑opinion testimony: perception‑based and helpful to jury)
- United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2011) (prohibits asking a witness, including defendant, whether another witness was lying; jury decides credibility)
- United States v. Price, 792 F.2d 994 (11th Cir. 1986) (recorded statements may be admitted to make defendant’s statements understandable to jury)
- United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2001) (jury may disbelieve defendant’s testimony and treat inconsistencies as evidence of guilt)