United States v. Manuel Aguilar
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3590
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Maldonado Aguilar was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine after a search following a protective sweep at his home.
- Meth, cash, a firearm, scales with meth residue, and tools were found in Maldonado’s home during the consent search.
- The government’s evidence tied Maldonado to a drug distribution conspiracy through a sequence from a cooperative drug deal to Maldonado’s house.
- Maldonado challenged the protective sweep, the warrantless search, and the presence of an alternate juror during deliberations.
- The district court denied suppression and Maldonado was sentenced within the guidelines to 235 months’ imprisonment.
- The panel remanded for factual findings on whether the alternate juror actually participated in deliberations and prejudiced the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the protective sweep reasonable and properly under Buie? | Maldonado argues the sweep was overbroad and unsupported. | Maldonado contends no near-adjoining area or danger justified sweeping the entire premises. | The sweep was not clearly reversible on the record; argument waived because not pressed in suppression motion. |
| Was Maldonado's consent to search voluntary? | Consent was involuntary due to language, custody, and coercive factors. | Consent was voluntary; no coercion or Miranda warning requirement for voluntariness. | Consent was voluntary; the district court did not err in denying suppression. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict Maldonado of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt? | Evidence showed conspiratorial involvement by Maldonado. | Arguments about standard of proof were mischaracterized; no separate issue for Maldonado. | There was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction. |
| Did the presence of an alternate juror during deliberations prejudice Maldonado, requiring a remand or new trial? | The alternate actively participated, potentially prejudicing the verdict. | Hill held presence alone does not demonstrate prejudice; no reversible error without proof. | Remanded for factual findings on the alternate's actual participation to determine prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2006) (protective sweep standards)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (protective sweep scope and safety)
- United States v. Arciniega, 569 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2009) (totality of circumstances for voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Garcia, 197 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir. 1999) (reasonableness standard for apparent consent)
- United States v. Hill, 91 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 1996) (alternate presence during deliberations not automatically prejudicial)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error prejudice analysis for Rule 24(c) violations)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (preserving jury integrity; prejudice determinations require hearings)
- United States v. Tucker, 137 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 1998) (evidentiary hearing on juror outside influence when prejudice is possible)
- United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1973) (remedial hearing to assess alternate participation in deliberations)
- Acevedo v. United States, 141 F.3d 1421 (11th Cir. 1998) (prejudice may be shown by actual participation of an alternate)