United States v. Martinez-Alberto, 20-2129

Background

The Black Wolfpack, a 28-foot vessel, was intercepted off St. Thomas on Jan. 27, 2018; agents seized 111 cocaine bricks (~132 kg) and arrested four persons, including appellants Katerin Martínez‑Alberto and Alexandria Andino‑Rodríguez.
Evidence included phone extractions (photos, texts), marina records, and surveillance; Exhibit 88 was a Nov. 4, 2017 photo from Martínez’s phone showing packaged bricks with distinctive stickers.
Co‑conspirator Bernardo Coplin‑Benjamín organized the boat operation; José Resto‑Miranda cooperated, pled guilty, and testified at trial under a cooperation agreement.
Martínez and Andino were tried jointly, convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to import cocaine, and each sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ supervised release.
On appeal Martínez raised trial‑evidence and jury‑instruction claims (recross of Resto, striking gun testimony, in‑court display of her foot, and instructional wording). Andino challenged the denial of a mitigating‑role reduction at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Denial of recross and district court’s striking of Resto’s gun testimony (Martínez)	Denial of recross plus striking the gun‑registration testimony undermined her Confrontation Clause right and prevented effective impeachment of Resto’s credibility/bias.	Defense had ample opportunity to impeach Resto; the gun line was irrelevant or misleading and properly stricken; recross denial was within discretion.	No reversible error: court afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach; denial of recross not an abuse of discretion; striking the gun testimony, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exclusion of in‑court display of Martínez’s foot to compare with Exhibit 88	Displaying her foot would rebut identification and tend to show lack of knowledge; exclusion deprived defense of critical demonstrative evidence.	No proper foundation or relevance; Exhibit 88 was admitted to show timing and packaging, not to identify Martínez; showing the foot would invite testimony and open cross‑examination.	No abuse of discretion: proponent failed to lay necessary foundation and the proposed evidence lacked requisite relevance.
Jury instructions grouping defendants (Martínez)	The charge repeatedly referred to "the defendants" and failed to instruct jurors to consider each defendant separately, risking spillover prejudice.	Instructions read as a whole (presumption of innocence, separate verdict forms, explicit line requiring each defendant’s participation) made clear jurors must decide separately for each defendant.	Plain‑error review fails: no clear or obvious error; instructions, viewed holistically with separate verdict forms and indictment, adequately directed individualized consideration.
Denial of mitigating‑role adjustment (Andino)	Andino was a lesser, essentially supporting participant (filler/mule) and thus entitled to minor/minimal participant reduction under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2.	Andino participated repeatedly (trips, registering the boat, helping package, planning meetings) and was paid materially ($7,000); district court’s factual findings supported denial.	Affirmed: district court’s denial was not clearly erroneous under deferential, fact‑intensive role‑in‑offense standard.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to the jury verdict)
United States v. Maldonado‑Peña, 4 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (Confrontation Clause and reasonable limits on cross‑examination)
United States v. Casey, 825 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (trial court discretion to impose reasonable limits on cross‑examination)
United States v. Kenrick, 221 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2000) (recross‑examination and trial court discretion)
United States v. Pérez‑Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (two‑step review: de novo threshold on confrontation opportunity, then abuse‑of‑discretion review)
United States v. George, 761 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2014) (harmless‑error factors for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Earle, 488 F.3d 537 (1st Cir. 2007) (harmlessness analysis for constitutional errors)
United States v. De la Cruz‑Gutiérrez, 881 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2018) (role‑in‑offense sentencing adjustments review; fact‑intensive standard)
United States v. Mendoza‑Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (burden on defendant to prove mitigating role by preponderance; clear‑error standard)