United States v. Etienne
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20699
1st Cir.2014Background
- Etienne was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack based on ATF-investigation evidence in Boston's North Shore.
- The government used an undercover informant (Smith) and body wires to record two crack deals with Etienne and Jean-Francois.
- Mercer (ATF agent) described the investigation; Bruce (Massachusetts State Trooper) and Smith testified at trial.
- Etienne challenged overviews, interpretive testimony, and voice identifications, arguing they improperly bolstered Smith and violated rules.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed a seventy-month term, treating the drug quantity as triggering a five-year minimum under Alleyne.
- Etienne appeals, arguing plain-error in evidentiary rulings and Alleyne error; the First Circuit affirms both conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overview testimony was plain error | Etienne contends Mercer’s overview testimony improperly framed the case. | Government argues testimony was personal-knowledge-based and not improper overview. | No reversible plain error; Mercer’s testimony largely based on personal knowledge and proper background. |
| Whether interpretive testimony was admissible | Etienne argues officers improperly explained drug-crime parlance to the jury. | Government asserts lay/qualified interpretation helps the jury understand the drug trade. | Interpretive testimony admitted; not plain error given officers' experience and context. |
| Whether identification testimony identifying voices lacked foundation | Etienne asserts failure to lay foundation for voice identification by Mercer's and Bruce's testimony. | Government says Bruce’s foundation is clear and Mercer’s identification is largely corroborated by Smith’s testimony. | Any error did not affect substantial rights; identification by Smith, Bruce, and Mercer was sufficiently supported. |
| Alleyne error about sentencing minimum and drug quantity | Etienne argues the district court erred by applying a five-year minimum without jury finding on drug quantity. | Government concedes error but asserts stipulations to drug quantity and admission cures the issue; otherwise unconsequential. | No Alleyne violation; stipulations and admission of quantities allowed minimum as trial evidence, not improper judicial factfinding. |
| Effect of drug-quantity stipulations on outcome | Etienne seeks relief by disregarding stipulations to drug quantity. | Government maintains stipulations were binding and beneficial to Etienne at trial. | Stipulations binding; court declined to disregard them; validation of the minimum quantity finding remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (overview testimony considerations)
- Flores-de-Jesús v. United States, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits on overview testimony)
- United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (overview testimony pitfalls)
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (improper overview in conspiracy cases)
- Rosado-Pérez v. United States, 605 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (overview testimony not based on personal knowledge)
- United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2012) (agency-witness personal knowledge standard)
- United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 665 F.3d 351 (1st Cir. 2011) (foundation for witness knowledge)
- United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (1st Cir. 1993) (conspiracy evidence standards)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (jury findings required for minimum penalties)
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir. 2013) (Alleyne application post-Act)