United States v. Pascucci, 666 F.3d 1

Background

Pelletier was convicted after a six-day jury trial of conspiracies to import and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and related counts; the scheme involved a confederate swimmer across the St. John River from Canada to Maine, delivering marijuana to Pelletier's network and selling it for substantially higher prices.
Pelletier’s co-conspirators and swimmers reportedly transported approximately 60–handfuls of marijuana per trip, with total quantities culminating in over 1,000 kilograms alleged for conspiracy purposes.
Evidence included testimony that Pelletier recruited swimmers, facilitated cross-border smuggling, and allegedly controlled the distribution network from Portland, Maine, and surrounding areas.
Before trial, Pelletier moved to exclude prior drug convictions; the government sought to admit them to prove knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake, with limiting jury instructions.
Hafford testified about his own involvement and Easler’s jailhouse statements; Easler’s statements were admitted under Rule 804(b)(3) as against penal interest, with a contested Confrontation Clause issue.
The district court calculated drug quantity by aggregating Hafford’s and Easler’s described smuggling, plus stolen drug proceeds, concluding evidence supported well over 1,000 kilograms; Pelletier challenged the sufficiency of evidence but the court denied post-trial Rule 29 relief and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior crimes under Rule 404(b)	Pelletier argues prior drug convictions were prejudicial and lacked proper 404(b) relevance.	Pelletier contends the evidence was not probative of knowledge/intent and was unfairly prejudicial.	No reversible error; evidence had special relevance and probative value outweighed prejudice.
Rule 804(b)(3) statements against interest	Easler's statements were against penal interest and trustworthy.	Statements were untrustworthy or not sufficiently corroborated.	Admissible; corroboration adequate and statements sufficiently against penal interest.
Confrontation Clause applicability to inmate-to-inmate statements	Admission violated Crawford/Davis because testimonial hearsay.	Inmate-to-inmate statements are non-testimonial and admissible.	Confrontation Clause not implicated; statements non-testimonial and cross-examined.
Jury instructions on conspiracy elements and knowledge/intent	Instructions omitted required knowing/intent elements for importation and possession with intent to distribute.	Any error was not plain and the evidence showed knowledge/intent.	No plain error; substantial evidence supported knowledge and intent.
Sufficiency of drug-quantity evidence (≥1000 kg)	Evidence supported 1,000 kg or more based on Hafford and Easler’s accounts.	Estimations were imprecise and should not support a large quantity finding.	Sufficient evidence supported a finding of 1,000 kg or more; jury could reasonably infer.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284 (1st Cir. 1997) (rule 804(b)(3) corroboration; admissibility of out-of-court statements under penal interest)
United States v. Jim e9nez, 419 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2005) (test for whether a statement is against penal interest)
United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284 (1st Cir. 1997) (corroboration requirement; admissibility of hearsay)
United States v. Landrau-Lopez, 444 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2006) (prior convictions probative of knowledge/intent in drug conspiracy)
United States v. Nickens, 955 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1992) (prior convictions relevant to knowledge/intent)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (plain-error review for unpreserved errors)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (testimonial vs non-testimonial hearsay; confrontation Clause scope)
United States v. Figueroa-Cartegena, 612 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010) (articulation of Confrontation Clause application)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (2011) (confrontation clause and testimonial evidence)