United States v. Nicholas Ceja
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14874
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Brothers Constantino and Nicholas Cejas were investigated for February 8 and February 14, 2011 drug activity tied to Brian Denny’s residence in Terre Haute, Indiana.
- FBI used a pole camera recording live feeds that intermittently skipped seconds; the footage was admitted at trial with authentication video evidence.
- February 8 footage showed a drug deal with Constantino; February 14 footage showed both brothers at Denny’s, toolbox access, and subsequent seizure of cash and firearms.
- Denny testified to drug transactions; agents followed the truck post-transaction; drug distribution charges, conspiracy, and § 924(c) firearm counts were at issue.
- Nicholas challenged admissibility and completeness of the February 14 video; Constantino challenged the second § 924(c) conviction as double jeopardy and as contrary to Congress’s intent and lenity.
- Jury convicted the brothers on all counts; Constantino received a lengthy sentence primarily due to the second § 924(c) conviction and its stacking rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the February 14 video was properly authenticated | Constantino; Nicholas argue inadequate authentication | Cejas bzw. Constantino contend proper authentication lacking | Video authenticated; proper foundation and reliability shown |
| Whether the February 14 video was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Nicholas argues prejudice from missing footage | Video probative and not substantially prejudicial | Video not unfairly prejudicial; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Nicholas on conspiracy and drug counts | Government posits circumstantial evidence suffices | Nicholas argues insufficient evidence | Sufficient evidence supported Nicholas’s conspiracy and drug convictions and aiding/abetting |
| Whether Constantino’s second § 924(c) conviction violated double jeopardy or congressional intent | Argues continuous possession should negate second conviction | § 924(c) offenses based on separate predicate drug offenses; not double jeopardy | Two § 924(c) convictions valid; stacking permitted for separate drug offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Fluker, 698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2012) (authenticity of recordings and circumstantial validation of evidence)
- Eberhart, 467 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2006) (video/audio authenticity standards; fair and accurate representation)
- Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794 (7th Cir. 1989) (foundation for tape admissibility; corroborating eyewitness testimony)
- Rembert, 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (authentication via camera use, quality, reliability; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- Westmoreland, 312 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2002) (tape recording properly authenticated when testimony shows accuracy)
- Larkins, 83 F.3d 162 (7th Cir. 1996) (unintelligible portions do not render recordings inadmissible; weight issue)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (affirmative acts and intent needed for aiding-and-abetting liability)
- Cureton, 739 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2014) (unit of prosecution under § 924(c) for separate predicate offenses)
- Cappas, 29 F.3d 1187 (7th Cir. 1994) (separate gun-use to support different § 924(c) predicates)
- Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (two § 924(c) convictions permitted when separate predicate offenses shown)