United States v. Espinal-Almeida
699 F.3d 588
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Undercover operation involved Avilés posing as a boat captain to infiltrate drug trafficking from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico.
- Defendants Espinal-Almeida, Hernández-De la Rosa, Peguero-Carela, and Tatis-Núñez were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to import 418 kilograms of cocaine.
- The operation included an on-sea drug exchange between a mothership and an undercover boat, followed by a beach handoff to ICE/PR authorities.
- Air patrols tracked the vessels with radar, video, and GPS data; a michera (Dominican fishing boat) was identified as the vessel involved in the exchange.
- Coast Guard and Puerto Rico police boarded the mothership, seized drugs and weapons, and transported the defendants to Mayagüez for prosecution.
- All four defendants were tried together and found guilty on both conspiracy counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte voir dire violated public-trial rights? | Peguero and Tatis contend ex parte bench voir dire violated Sixth Amendment. | Espinal concedes, Hernández lacks such argument; procedural impact on rights disputed. | Plain-error review; no substantial prejudice shown; no reversible error. |
| Whether in-court identifications were valid given pre-trial procedures | Government identifications were reliable despite possible suggestiveness. | Defendants argue identifications tainted by pretrial procedures. | identifications reliable; suppression not required. |
| Prosecutorial vouching in opening statements | Prosecutor previewed Avilés's testimony as anticipated trial witness. | Defendants claim improper vouching amplified credibility of government witness. | No improper vouching; opening statements permissible. |
| Authentication and admissibility of GPS data and mapping | GPS data and Garmin/Google Earth maps properly authenticated; Durand qualified to testify. | Challenge to authenticity/reliability and need for expert testimony. | Evidence properly authenticated; Durand's testimony sufficient; no obvious error. |
| Sentencing within Guidelines range for Espinal and Hernández | Court imposed within-range sentences based on amount of drugs, weapon, and role. | Claims of minimal-participant status and improper factors. | Sentence reasonable and within guidelines; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera-Rodríguez v. United States, 617 F.3d 581 (1st Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for ex parte voir dire when no objection raised; no prejudice shown)
- De León-Quiñones v. United States, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009) (reliability-first approach to pre-trial identifications)
- Therrien v. Vose, 782 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) (impartial-jury conduct; general guidance on voir dire)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (S. Ct. 2007) (requirement of reasoning when applying the guidelines; not always lengthy)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (S. Ct. 2012) (modern approach to eyewitness identification—no per se rule against all pretrial procedures)