United States v. Juan Salazar
751 F.3d 326
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Salazar was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and related offenses, plus firearm charges in furtherance of drug trafficking.
- The government presented overwhelming evidence; Salazar testified and confessed to all charged crimes.
- The district court instructed the jury to return a guilty verdict after Salazar’s testimony and confession.
- Salazar requested a withdrawal instruction; the court refused, concluding no timely withdrawal was possible.
- Salazar appealed asserting (i) withdrawal instruction was required and (ii) the directed verdict violated the Sixth Amendment.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was withdrawal instruction required and timely given? | Salazar argues withdrawal evidence warranted jury instruction. | Salazar maintains timely withdrawal precluded liability. | No timely withdrawal; instruction not required. |
| Did the district court's directed verdict violate the Sixth Amendment? | Salazar contends directing verdict denied jury trial right. | Government argues confession equates to waiver. | Directed verdict violated Sixth Amendment. |
| Should the appeal be reviewed for invited error or plain error? | Salazar preserved the Sixth Amendment issue for appeal. | Government argues invited error; defense comments insufficient. | Not invited error; plain error analysis not applicable. |
| Does confession defeat the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial? | Confession does not override the jury’s role. | Confession can function as evidence, not a waiver. | Right to jury trial remains intact; cannot be overridden by confession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (directed verdicts are unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment)
- Gaudin v. Crews, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury trial rights require jury to determine all elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions)
- Theagene v. United States, 565 F.3d 911 (5th Cir. 2009) (de novo review for withdrawal instruction as defense issue)
- Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73 (1983) (courts cannot enter conviction or direct verdict regardless of evidence)