United States v. Mauricio Marchan, 935 F.3d 540

Background

On Jan 4, 2017, government informant Pedro Chavelas arranged a purchase of cocaine in a Target parking lot; Mauricio Marchan, co-defendant Victor Ramirez, and a third person (Moreno) were arrested and agents recovered one kilogram of cocaine from a white car.
Telephone records showed repeated calls among Marchan, Ramirez, and Moreno prior to the arrest; agents seized cell phones and surveillance footage and an audio recording of the transaction existed in Spanish with a translated transcript.
Marchan was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine and one count of distribution of 500+ grams; he was tried by jury and convicted on both counts.
The government initially proffered a Santiago co-conspirator theory but withdrew the proffer and did not call Ramirez; therefore the court never ruled that a conspiracy was established.
At trial, the government presented the informant, multiple agents, surveillance evidence, and telephone-call analyses; the defense stipulated no fingerprint analysis was done.
The jury was initially given only the translated transcript, later requested the Spanish audio, and the court supplied the recording over Marchan’s objection; Marchan was sentenced to 60 months.

Issues

Issue	Marchan's Argument	Government's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Admission of alleged co-conspirator/hearsay statements; denial of mistrial	Multiple witnesses elicited inadmissible hearsay from Ramirez and others; mistrial required	Statements were offered as course-of-investigation (nonhearsay); objections were sustained where appropriate and jury instructed to disregard; testimony was cumulative	No abuse of discretion denying mistrial; statements were nonhearsay or harmless/cumulative error
Scope of cross-examination on informant's bias (avoided mandatory minimum)	Court improperly restricted cross-examining Chavelas about sentence-related motivation and avoided mandatory-minimum exposure, violating Confrontation Clause	Court allowed sufficient inquiry into bias (reduced recommendation, potential sentence); probing avoided-minimum was speculative and would confuse jury	Limitation was within court’s discretion; no Confrontation Clause violation
Allowing Spanish audio into jury deliberations after trial (jury had transcript)	Providing the Spanish audio risked juror-translation influence and prejudice	Audio was admitted evidence; judge instructed jury to rely on qualified translator and not personal Spanish skills	Permitting audio was not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Cumulative error claim	Multiple small errors together denied a fundamentally fair trial	Few actual errors; those that occurred were stricken or harmless and instructions cured prejudice	Cumulative errors did not deprive Marchan of a fair trial; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hilliard, 851 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2017) (mistrial standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (co-conspirator statements and Santiago context)
United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978) (framework for admitting co-conspirator statements)
United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (single buyer-seller transaction not necessarily a conspiracy)
United States v. Cruse, 805 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2015) (statements offered to show course of investigation are nonhearsay)
United States v. Taylor, 569 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2009) (course-of-investigation hearsay reasoning)
Carter v. Douma, 796 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2015) (caution against overbroad use of course-of-investigation rationale)
United States v. Haldar, 751 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussion of course-of-investigation limits)
United States v. Castelan, 219 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error analysis for cumulative/corroborated testimony)
United States v. Bermea-Boone, 563 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2009) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
United States v. Trent, 863 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing Confrontation Clause limitations)
United States v. Cavender, 228 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000) (district court’s latitude to limit cross-examination)
United States v. Williams, 892 F.3d 242 (7th Cir. 2018) (extent of opportunity to expose witness bias is secondary)
United States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007) (district court discretion over exhibits in deliberations)
United States v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2016) (presumption juries follow instructions)
United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1997) (admissions of transcripts/audio and remedial instructions)
United States v. Allen, 269 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2001) (cumulative-error standard)
Alvarez v. Boyd, 225 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2000) (cumulative-error framework)