United States v. Lopesierra-Gutierrez
404 U.S. App. D.C. 115
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Lopesierra-Gutierrez, a Colombian national, was extradited and convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine with knowledge/intent it would be imported to the U.S.; district court sentenced him to 300 months.
- Cooperating witness testimony suggested funds to Lopesierra’s attorney, prompting conflict-of-interest concerns and a DOJ investigation; court allowed waiver of the conflict.
- Lopesierra waived the conflict after waivers and hearings; he was represented by conflict counsel and ultimately by his chosen attorney at trial.
- Trial spanned nearly four years due to a broad Osorio conspiracy, multiple extraditions, and extensive foreign evidence and witnesses.
- Lopesierra contends his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel and his speedy-trial rights were violated; the court rejects these and other claims as meritless.
- Court affirms Lopesierra’s conviction and 300-month sentence; remaining challenges are deemed either harmless or unpersuasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict waiver validity | Lopesierra argues waiver was invalid | Lopesierra waived knowingly and voluntarily | Waiver valid; conflict waivable under standard |
| Speedy-trial under Barker factors | Speedy-trial delay violated Sixth Amendment | Delay justified by complexity and ongoing proceedings | Delay within lawful bounds; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Speedy Trial Act tolling | Clock mis-tolled due to missing order | Orders properly toll the clock | Phantom order existed; second stay justified; clock properly tolled |
| Evidence and knowledge/intent sufficiency | Evidence insufficient to show knowledge/intent | Evidence supports knowledge/intent | Sufficiency established; rational juror could find knowledge/intent |
| Jury instructions and unanimity | Need multiple-conspiracies instruction; unanimity on mens rea | No requirement to unanimously choose knowledge vs. intent | No error; single instruction adequate; no plain error |
| Sentencing reasonableness and Apprendi | Apprendi requires jury finding for drug quantity | Harmless error; substantial evidence supports sentence | Apprendi error harmless; sentence within reasonableness |
| Cumulative error | Cumulative errors deprived fair trial | No cumulative reversible effect | No fundamental unfairness; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981) (counsel-conflict and right to counsel of choice)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (waivers of Sixth Amendment rights require knowing and voluntary waiver)
- Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (conflict of interest waivers and per se unwaivable conflicts rejected)
- Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (waiver when conflict related but not pervasive in all aspects)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (unanimity not required on which mens rea was possessed)
- Hurt, 527 F.3d 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for non-unanimity on mens rea allowed)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)