United States v. Gonzalez-Perez
778 F.3d 3
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- FBI "Operation Guard Shack" used confidential informant Héctor Cotto (a former PRPD officer) to sting allegedly corrupt Puerto Rico police officers by staging recorded drug transactions and paying officers for armed protection.
- Defendant David González, a former PRPD officer previously convicted in a state bribery matter, participated in 15 recorded transactions after initially agreeing to a $2,000 security job on Sept. 10, 2009; he accepted payment and on later transactions carried firearms and recruited others.
- At trial González admitted participating but claimed: the first transaction did not manifestly involve drugs; his firearms were blanks; he was financially pressured and later participated out of fear for his and his family's safety.
- Jury acquitted González of firearm counts and of the first-transaction drug counts but convicted him on drug counts arising from the remaining 14 transactions; he was sentenced to 292 months.
- On appeal González challenged (1) denial of jury instructions on entrapment and duress, (2) refusal to give an impeachment-by-prior-conviction instruction, and (3) various trial-court interruptions and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing/rebuttal.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding the record lacked sufficient evidence of government inducement or of duress, the credibility instruction adequately covered impeachment concerns, and any trial remarks were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment instruction | Government: sting was lawful opportunity, no overreaching inducement | González: Cotto's persistence, friendship, and exploitation of finances constituted inducement and lack of predisposition | Denied — no "plus" evidence of overreaching; record showed predisposition and voluntary participation |
| Duress instruction | Government: no evidence of imminent threat tied to charged conduct | González: feared violent retaliation for not cooperating; participated to protect family | Denied — threats, if any, were vague/future-oriented, irrelevant to the charged offenses, and no lack of reasonable opportunity to avoid conduct |
| Impeachment by prior conviction instruction | Government: jury informed of witnesses' guilty pleas and cooperation; specific instruction not required | González: requested explicit Rule 609 instruction because key witnesses had felony convictions | Denied as reversible error — trial court misstated law but its charge substantially covered credibility and cautioned jury to weigh plea/cooperation |
| Closing/rebuttal argument & trial interjections (new trial) | Government: court acted within discretion; prosecutor's rebuttal was responsive; any misstatements were harmless | González: court interrupted defense improperly, sustained undue objections, and prosecutor made improper remarks undermining fairness | Denied — judge's active role permissible; curative instructions given; rebuttal comments permissible or harmless; no manifest abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Díaz-Castro, 752 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2014) (discusses entrapment elements and burden for an instruction)
- United States v. Dávila-Nieves, 670 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (entrapment-instruction review de novo; sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Guevara, 706 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2013) (government "plus" inducement examples and limits of sting operations)
- United States v. Vázquez, 724 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2013) (duress defense elements and imminence requirement)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 514 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2008) (standards for appellate review of a district court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 675 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2012) (harmlessness analysis for improper remarks and presumption that juries follow curative instructions)