United States v. Marisol Garcia
683 F. App'x 838
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marisol Garcia convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon after a jury trial.
- Victim Cesar Quirgo testified he was shot in the leg after Garcia allegedly yelled “shoot him,” lifted her purse on her right shoulder, and Garcia’s boyfriend retrieved a gun from the purse and fired.
- Quirgo had four prior felony convictions and was on probation at the time; defense sought to cross-examine about potential probation-violation consequences (including speculative life exposure).
- Defense contested the sufficiency and weight of the evidence (arguing inconsistent statements and other witnesses who said Garcia lacked a purse or gun) and moved for acquittal or new trial.
- Defense also sought mistrial for alleged prosecutorial misconduct (improper appeals in closing and use of false/inconsistent testimony).
- The district court limited certain cross-examination, denied acquittal/new-trial/mistrial motions; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on cross-examination of key witness (Confrontation Clause) | Garcia: Court improperly barred questioning about speculative life sentence exposure that could show witness bias. | Government: Limits were reasonable; defense still elicited convictions, probation status, and possible jail exposure. | Court: No abuse of discretion; permissible limits on speculative questioning did not materially deprive jury of means to assess credibility. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / motion for judgment of acquittal | Garcia: Evidence insufficient and inconsistent; no motive; witnesses conflicted about purse/gun. | Government: Evidence (Quirgo’s testimony, circumstantial) supports knowing possession and interstate nexus; jury credited witness. | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to government, sufficient evidence supported conviction; new-trial for weight of evidence not warranted. |
| Motion for new trial based on weight of evidence | Garcia: Verdict against weight of evidence; inconsistencies warranted new trial. | Government: Trial court discretion; evidence did not preponderate heavily against verdict. | Court: Deferential review; no miscarriage of justice—denial affirmed. |
| Mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct / false testimony | Garcia: Prosecutor appealed to community conscience, used or failed to correct false/inconsistent testimony—warranting mistrial. | Government: Remarks not per se impermissible; inconsistencies not shown to be perjured; curative instructions mitigated harm. | Court: No abuse of discretion; curative instructions and independent evidence of guilt made any error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for review of limits on cross-examination and Confrontation Clause analysis)
- United States v. Garcia, 13 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1994) (test whether cross-examination would give jury a significantly different impression)
- United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1994) (allowing sufficient cross-examination to expose credibility issues satisfies confrontation concerns)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (trial court may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination for several concerns)
- United States v. Gregory, 730 F.2d 692 (11th Cir. 1984) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on motion for acquittal)
- United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of sufficiency; view evidence in government’s favor)
- United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir. 1985) (deferential review of new-trial-on-weight determinations)
- United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (elements of § 922(g)(1) offense)
- United States v. Perez, 30 F.3d 1407 (11th Cir. 1994) (standard for reviewing mistrial denials)
- United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial misconduct reviewed de novo; prejudice standard)
- United States v. Herring, 955 F.2d 703 (11th Cir. 1992) (weight given to trial court’s assessment and curative instruction efficacy)
- United States v. Kopituk, 690 F.2d 1289 (11th Cir. 1982) (appeals to conscience of community not per se impermissible)
- United States v. Michael, 17 F.3d 1383 (11th Cir. 1994) (inconsistent prior statement does not automatically establish prosecutorial use of perjury)
- United States v. Gainey, 111 F.3d 834 (11th Cir. 1997) (curative instruction can cure improper argument)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) (similar on curative instruction and misconduct)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) (inconsistent testimony not prejudicial when jury had opportunity to evaluate inconsistencies)