United States v. Mario Wilchcombe
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17971
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In May 2014 Coast Guard intercepted Rolle’s Bahamian-registered fishing boat; 40 packages recovered containing 35 kg cocaine and 860 kg marijuana after crew jettisoned bales. Defendants aboard: Rolle (captain), Wilchcombe, Beauplant, plus cooperating witness Russell and a minor, Henri.
- All three defendants convicted after jury trial of MDLEA counts (conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute large quantities of cocaine and marijuana); Rolle also convicted for failing to heave to. Sentences: Beauplant and Wilchcombe ~120 months; Rolle 135 months.
- Key factual disputes: whether the Bahamian SNO (statement of no objection) authorized U.S. jurisdiction; whether Wilchcombe knowingly participated vs. mere presence; Rolle’s claim of coercion by Russell; whether government conduct (sinking boat, repatriating Henri) and admission of prior arrest for Beauplant prejudiced defendants.
- Procedural: Russell pleaded guilty and cooperated at trial. District court empaneled separate juries to avoid prejudice from Beauplant’s prior trafficking evidence. Defendants raise jurisdictional and evidentiary challenges on appeal.
- Trial evidence included Coast Guard testimony about defendants’ conduct and post-arrest silence (no Miranda warnings given); Russell’s testimonial account contradicted portions of defendants’ stories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDLEA jurisdictional reach / nexus | Gov: MDLEA applies to foreign-registered vessels with SNO; no nexus to U.S. citizen needed. | Rolle/Wilchcombe: MDLEA violates due process because it lacks a U.S.-nexus requirement; SNO defective. | Affirmed: MDLEA valid without U.S. nexus; SNO here sufficiently communicated Bahamian waiver; no clear error or bad faith in SNO procurement. |
| Jurisdiction challenged based on SNO accuracy | Gov: Commander designee certified Bahamian waiver; substance controls over literal wording. | Defs: Coast Guard misrepresented registration documents to Bahamas; would have delayed boarding absent misstatement. | Affirmed: conflicting record evidence; even if some misstatement, no bad faith or prejudice to jurisdiction determination. |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Wilchcombe (mere presence) | Gov: large drug quantity and conduct (jettisoning packages, evasive maneuvers, Wilchcombe holding wire, acquaintance with crew) show knowing participation. | Wilchcombe: only showed mere presence; government failed to prove participation. | Affirmed: quantity + additional factors sufficient for reasonable juror to find knowing participation. |
| Use of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence / mistrial request | Gov: may comment on post-arrest/pre-Miranda silence; used silence to rebut duress claim and impeach Rolle. | Defs (Beauplant/Rolle): Prosecutor’s comments on silence violated Fifth Amendment and warranted mistrial. | Affirmed: Under Eleventh Circuit precedent (Rivera) such comments are permissible; any error harmless for Beauplant and proper impeachment for Rolle. |
| Failure-to-preserve evidence / repatriation of witness Henri | Def: government destroyed boat without photographing center console and repatriated Henri, depriving potentially exculpatory evidence; bad faith. | Gov: routine decisions about resources and repatriation; no bad faith; alternatives unavailable. | Affirmed: defendant failed to show evidence had apparent exculpatory value and that government acted in bad faith. |
| Admission of prior arrest (Rule 404(b)) | Gov: prior captain arrest for trafficking is admissible to show Beauplant’s knowledge and intent. | Beauplant: prior arrest used impermissibly for propensity and unfair prejudice. | Affirmed: 404(b) admission proper — relevant to knowledge/intent, proven by preponderance, and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instruction given. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir.) (standard for jurisdictional fact review and sufficiency review in maritime drug cases)
- United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir.) (MDLEA does not require U.S.-nexus; Eleventh Circuit precedent)
- United States v. Suerte, 291 F.3d 366 (5th Cir.) (MDLEA application without nexus)
- United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir.) (contrast: MDLEA requires nexus)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibition on comment on defendant’s silence at trial)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial warnings and privilege against self-incrimination)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless error standard for constitutional error)
- United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir.) (allows prosecution to comment on post-arrest/pre-Miranda silence in case-in-chief under circuit precedent)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
- United States v. Revolorio-Ramo, 468 F.3d 771 (11th Cir.) (standards for destroyed or lost evidence claims)