United States v. Maymi-Maysonet, 812 F.3d 233

Undercover Homeland Security agents staged a sham purchase of 5 kilos of cocaine at a Hampton Inn in Puerto Rico; a confidential informant (CI) assisted but did not testify at trial.
Co-defendants Rodríguez and García met with the CI; agents observed them meet Maymí near a fence shortly before a red Suzuki left and later returned to the hotel parking lot.
After the Suzuki returned, Rodríguez carried a black bag later found to contain $92,500 (plus $10,000 on Rodríguez); Maymí was arrested as he exited the Suzuki and had $10,500 on his person (this cash was later returned to him).
The government charged Maymí with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilos or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting that offense; García and Rodríguez pleaded guilty; two other Suzuki occupants were not prosecuted.
At trial the CI did not testify and a recording of the fence conversation was not used; a jury convicted Maymí on both counts and he was sentenced to 240 months.
On appeal Maymí argued insufficient evidence supported his knowledge of the drug conspiracy and that he knowingly aided and abetted it; the majority affirmed, a dissent would reverse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5+ kg cocaine	Government: circumstantial evidence (presence at meeting with CI, timing of Suzuki, cash on Maymí, Rodriguez carrying the black bag) permits inference Maymí knowingly joined the conspiracy	Maymí: mere presence, returned cash, release of co-occupants, absence of CI testimony/recording show no proof he knew the conspiracy involved drugs or that he voluntarily participated	Affirmed: viewed cumulatively, circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to infer knowledge and participation
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting the substantive offense	Government: same circumstantial chain supports that Maymí associated with and intended to further the drug transaction	Maymí: no direct proof he knew the crime charged (drug deal), mere presence/possession of cash insufficient to show intent to assure success of the offense	Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer Maymí took part in and intended to assure the success of the drug transaction

United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 1995) (circumstantial evidence and inferences permissible to prove intent)
United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586 (1st Cir. 1994) (limits on inferring knowledge where no evidence information was communicated to defendant)
United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 1995) (reversal required if circumstantial evidence supports guilt and innocence equally)
United States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703 (1st Cir. 1994) (circumstantial evidence should be viewed in totality)
United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992) (mere presence not enough; jurors may infer knowledge from surrounding circumstances)
United States v. Burgos, 703 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (government must prove defendant knew conspiracy involved controlled substance; generalized illegality insufficient)
United States v. Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2010) (distinguishes knowledge of some crime from knowledge of the specific charged offense)
United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2011) (elements of conspiracy: existence, knowledge, and voluntary participation)
United States v. González, 570 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (aiding and abetting requires association with and intent to assure success of the offense)