United States v. Meises
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9743
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Meises and Reyes-Guerrero were arrested in a reverse sting with Rubis and a bag containing $100,000; they were charged with conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Undercover DEA task force, including Cruz and Torres, conducted a sham cocaine display to trap the buyers.
- The minivan interaction at the shopping center formed the core of the alleged conspiracy; Cruz watched on surveillance while Torres recorded some portions.
- Cruz testified identifying Mieses and Reyes-Guerrero as buyers and owners of the money; other evidence included audio calls and videotapes.
- The district court admitted Cruz’s overview testimony and Cruz’s testimony about Rubis’s post-arrest interview, and excluded an audiotape.
- On appeal, Reyes-Guerrero challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the overview testimony, the post-arrest interview testimony, and the audiotape issue, seeking a new trial or acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz's overview testimony was improper. | Reyes-Guerrero argues it violated Flores-de-Jesus/Casas. | United States contends Cruz’s testimony was proper lay opinion based on observations. | Yes; improper overview testimony |
| Whether Cruz's testimony about Rubis's interview violated the Confrontation Clause. | Cruz conveyed Rubis’s inculpatory accusation indirectly; Crawford barred it. | Prosecution argues no explicit statement; opened door defense. | Yes; violated Crawford; reversible error requiring new trial. |
| Whether the cross-examined removal of the opened door to Rubis’s statements was improper. | Admission was to rebut absence in early DEA reports but violated Confrontation Clause. | Prosecution claims proper rebuttal of mere absence from reports. | Improper; opened door did not justify admission. |
| Whether Reyes-Guerrero's sufficiency challenge should be sustained. | Record lacks Reyes-Guerrero’s own words; only informant’s words. | Torres’s testimony plus other evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Record suffices; however, due to other errors, convictions vacated for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-de-Jesus v. United States, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (overview testimony cautioned as improper when not based on personal knowledge)
- Casas v. United States, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (limits on agent’s overview testimony in multi-defendant cases)
- Garcia v. United States, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (lay opinion testimony must be based on perception and helpful to understanding)
- Maher v. United States, 454 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2006) (backdoor statements through non-testifying informants raise Crawford concerns)
- Ryan v. Miller, 303 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2002) (forfeiture of Crawford rights when deputy indirectly conveys co-conspirator statements)
- Cabrera-Rivera v. United States, 583 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2009) (preservation and Crawford considerations in Confrontation Clause)