United States v. Lorena Morales
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2265
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Morales (age 21) was indicted and tried for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute; co-defendants Gallardo and Borboa pleaded guilty and cooperated.
- Evidence: Borboa and Gallardo testified that Morales drove and transported a duffle bag containing ~6 kg methamphetamine from CA to Iowa; K-9 alerted and drugs were found in Morales’s trunk after a traffic stop.
- Morales testified she did not know about the drugs and asserted she went on the trips for personal reasons; she received some payments after an earlier trip.
- Jury convicted Morales on both counts; PSR calculated Guideline range 151–188 months (offense level 34, CH I) with a two-level obstruction increase; district court denied minimal-participant adjustment but varied downward to impose the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum.
- Morales appealed, raising sufficiency of evidence, claim that the superseding indictment prejudiced her, alleged government misconduct in closing, alleged voir dire/jury empanelment problems, and sentencing errors including safety-valve and obstruction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Morales' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and possession-with-intent | Testimony of co-defendants was unreliable; Morales lacked knowledge and intent | Co-defendant testimony plus conduct (driving, trunk placement, texts, behavior at stop) permitted reasonable inference of knowledge and intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, reasonable jury could convict. |
| Superseding indictment / Rule 7(d) surplusage | Superseding indictment omitted co-defendants from Count II, prejudicing Morales by making her appear more culpable | Rule 7(d) strikes inflammatory or irrelevant allegations; omission does not violate indictment rights and defendants aren’t entitled to a full factual account in the indictment | Affirmed — no plain error; Rule 7(d) not a vehicle to force inclusion of omitted co-defendants. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (texts and insinuations) | Government suggested kidnapping and improperly attacked Morales’s presence at trial | Text messages were relevant to knowledge; prosecutor may highlight benefits a testifying defendant has from hearing other witnesses (Portuondo) | Affirmed — no plain error; comments were within permissible bounds. |
| Jury empanelment and voir dire conduct | Jurors were pro-police; judge’s remarks about another drug case improperly displayed authority | Morales waived juror-bias objections by not objecting; judge’s remarks were factual and corrected when mistaken | Affirmed — waiver limits review; no plain error on judge’s brief comments. |
| Sentencing (obstruction enhancement; safety-valve; substantive reasonableness) | Court erred applying §3C1.1; denied safety-valve and relied excessively on co-defendant testimony | Any guideline miscalculation was harmless because mandatory minimum (no safety-valve motion/grant) controlled; court considered §3553(a) and varied to mandatory minimum | Affirmed — no reversible procedural or substantive error; safety-valve not established and sentence reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sullivan, 714 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Parker, 587 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2009) (possession with intent to distribute requires knowledge and intent)
- United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2013) (co-conspirator testimony may support conviction)
- United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2007) (Rule 7(d) surplusage standard)
- Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (prosecutor may comment on perceptible advantage of defendant testifying last)