United States v. Max Jeri
869 F.3d 1247
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Max Jeri arrived from Lima to Miami carrying three checked bags and a carry-on; officers found ~7.95 kg of cocaine concealed in jackets, purses, notebooks, pillows, and bottles across his luggage.\
- Jeri told officers he had received the bags from a coworker, Fancy Lopez, who owned a travel agency; he had transported bags for her before and admitted lying about some answers to officers.\
- Law enforcement conducted controlled calls/texts with Jeri to Lopez and attempted a controlled delivery; transcripts were prepared but excluded at trial.\
- A television crew filmed portions of the post-seizure processing for a show called “Drug Wars”; the prosecution obtained the footage the evening before trial and delivered it to defense counsel the morning trial began; defense’s requests for a continuance and to admit the video were denied.\
- Trial lasted 1.5 days; government presented CBP officers, an HSI agent (Escobar), and two experts; jury convicted Jeri of importing and possession with intent to distribute; district court denied a new trial and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeri) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance after late disclosure of "Drug Wars" video (and alleged Brady/due-process violation) | Late production deprived counsel adequate time to prepare and view potentially exculpatory impeachment evidence; warranted continuance/new trial | Video was not materially exculpatory; denial of short continuance did not cause specific, substantial prejudice | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no Brady violation because video showed contraband after removal and was not material to guilt/knowledge element |
| Exclusion of transcripts of controlled calls/text messages | Transcripts were impeachment and state-of-mind evidence relevant to show innocence or Lopez’s role; rule of completeness should permit them | Transcripts were hearsay or irrelevant to Jeri’s state of mind; inadmissible under Rule 803(3); government didn’t introduce a writing requiring completion | Exclusion was within court’s discretion and harmless; transcripts were hearsay or irrelevant and would not have changed outcome |
| Limits on cross-/recross-examination of government witnesses (Laucerica, Escobar) | Court prevented probing hearsay, credibility topics, and recross on new redirect matters, infringing Confrontation and fair-trial rights | Limits were proper under Rule 611(b); objections sustained to hearsay/speculation; redirect issues were responsive and recross not required | No clear abuse; even if some rulings erred, errors were harmless in context of cumulative, largely repetitive testimony and strong government case |
| Admission of lay testimony by agent (Escobar) / expert testimony (Suarez) and opinion on ultimate issue | Escobar acted as an undisclosed expert and opined on Jeri’s truthfulness/knowledge; Suarez improperly presented drug-courier profiling | Escobar testified as a lay witness based on personal experience; testimony did not state defendant’s mens rea; Suarez gave permissible expert background on smuggling methods and value | No abuse: Escobar’s testimony fit Rule 701 (or, at most, was harmless even if expert disclosure imperfect); Suarez’s testimony permissible and did not opine Jeri’s knowledge |
| Jury instruction on deliberate ignorance | Instruction improper because record supported actual knowledge, not deliberate avoidance; giving both confused jury | Evidence supported both actual knowledge and deliberate ignorance theories; both instructions may be given if supported | Instruction was warranted: record supported deliberate-ignorance inference and actual-knowledge theory; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady principle: suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls under Brady)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (continuance denial reviewed on case-specific grounds)
- United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563 (deliberate-ignorance instruction standards)
- United States v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d 552 (caution on drug-courier profiles)
- United States v. Garcia, 447 F.3d 1327 (permitting narcotics expert testimony about methods/value)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Confrontation Clause and scope of cross-examination)