United States v. Jose Diaz, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24385

Background

Diaz was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846; he appeals on four issues and we affirm.
The conspiracy involved smuggling cocaine from Mexico into the U.S. and distributing it through a multi-city network beginning in 2007.
Between 2010 and 2011, law enforcement monitored calls among key conspirators, including Lopez and Vallejo.
In November 2010, co-conspirators Arrendondo and Galacia hired Diaz to drive ten kilograms of cocaine from Houston to Alabama; Diaz testified he was paid only to transport pipe and claimed no involvement in trafficking.
Diaz described being told of a plan change, fearing for his son, driving all night, and feeling afraid due to constant instructions by phone; co-conspirators presented a much more incriminating account showing Diaz knew about and aided the drug shipment.
At the Comfort Inn in Livingston, Alabama, Diaz parked near the hotel; the red suitcase containing drugs was delivered to Diaz’s room, and surveillance captured Diaz with the suitcase and subsequent hotel discussions about payment.
On November 6, 2010, Diaz was questioned by agents outside a Burger King; he cooperated with police, did not admit illegal activity, and ultimately entered a police vehicle voluntarily; the officers did not threaten him.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Diaz was in custody for Miranda purposes	Diaz argues he was in custody during questioning and should have received Miranda warnings.	Diaz contends custodial circumstances existed given multiple armed officers and restricted movement.	Not in custody; interrogation occurred in open/public setting with liberty to leave.
Whether a duress or coercion instruction should have been given	Diaz claimed evidence of fear of death or serious harm warranted a duress instruction.	Diaz alleged compelling threat and no reasonable legal alternative justified duress.	No duress instruction; first and third elements unmet; no well-grounded fear or lack of alternative proved.
Whether the district court properly denied a judgment of acquittal	Diaz argued the government failed to prove he knowingly participated in trafficking.	Gov’t showed Diaz knowingly took part; Pace/Hernandez distinctions do not apply here.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction; jury could credit co-conspirator and surveillance testimony.
Whether Diaz qualified for safety valve relief at sentencing	Diaz contends truthfully providing information should qualify him for safety valve relief.	Diaz failed to provide complete, truthful information; trial testimony inconsistent.	District court did not abuse discretion; safety valve relief denied.
Whether the district court committed error in other related rulings	Not separately proffered; challenges to suppression and instructions overlap with above issues.	Challenged rulings lacked merit beyond the four primary issues.	No reversible error identified; overall conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (custody determination is objective and factors inform Miranda applicability)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995) (standard for custody includes liberty to terminate interrogation)
United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (six non-exclusive custody factors)
United States v. Cowan, 674 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (custody analysis focuses on whether the defendant’s freedom to depart was restricted)
United States v. Perrin, 659 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2011) (policy on custodial interrogation and statements)
United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (duress defense elements and necessity of evidence)
United States v. Jankowski, 194 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1999) (duress elements and reasonable alternatives to crime)
United States v. Listman, 636 F.3d 425 (8th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary weight for conspiracy participation)
United States v. Pace, 922 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1990) (presence near contraband not enough for possession)
United States v. Hernandez, 301 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2002) (limited evidence tying girlfriend to drugs invalidates acquittal)
United States v. Sanchez-Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011) (safety valve requires truthful information; district court review for clear error)
United States v. Aguilera, 625 F.3d 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (safety valve truthful information standard and proffer considerations)
United States v. Hinojosa, 728 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2013) (review standard for safety valve denial)