United States v. Pereira
51 F. Supp. 3d 203
D.P.R.2014Background
- Indictment charged 22 defendants on four counts; Pereira and Camacho-Santiago charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting others; trial against seven indicted including Pereira and Camacho began March 3, 2014.
- Defendants moved for Rule 29 acquittal at close of government’s evidence (April 7, 2014); court denied; jury found Pereira and Camacho guilty of counts 1 and 2 on April 14, 2014.
- Each defendant filed renewed Rule 29 motions arguing insufficiency of evidence; government opposed (Docket No. 1497).
- Defendants then moved for Rule 33 new trial; court held motions without merit due to lack of developed argument or newly discovered evidence.
- Court provides Rule 29 standard: view evidence in light most favorable to government and determine if reasonable juror could convict beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conspiracy convictions | Pereira and Camacho shown to participate knowingly in the DTO | No single ongoing conspiracy; multiple independent conspiracies | Single conspiracy supported; convictions affirmed |
| Whether Camacho’s Count One conviction was duplicitous | Evidence shows interdependent acts within a single conspiracy | Evidence suggests multiple independent suppliers, not a single conspiracy | Conviction sustained; not duplicitous |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Camacho on Count Two | Camacho acted as intermediary; testifying witnesses connect him to DTO | Insufficient linkage to exceed reasonable doubt | Count Two affirmed; sufficient evidence |
| Rule 33 new trial standard and denial of motion | New trial requested for evidentiary errors and weight of evidence | Requests inadequately argued and unsupported by law | Motions for new trial denied |
| Timeliness and procedural posture of post-verdict motions | Guilty verdict and discharge occurred April 14, 2014; motions timely | Not explicitly stated, but arguments insufficient | Motions timely under Rule 29(c)(1) and Rule 33 procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183 (1st Cir.1999) (standard for sufficiency review in Rule 29 motions: view in light favorable to government)
- United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2012) (avoid credibility judgments; favor government’s case on Rule 29 review)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir.1993) (avoid credibility judgments; favorable view for government)
- United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d 146 (1st Cir.2002) (standard for reasonable doubt in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Bristol-Martir, 570 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.2009) (requires showing of existence, knowledge, and participation in conspiracy)
- United States v. Hernandez, 218 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.2000) (conspiratorial knowledge and participation elements)
- United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.2011) (tacit agreement may suffice for conspiracy)
- Portela v. United States, 167 F.3d 695 (1st Cir.1999) (three-factor test for single conspiracy: common goal, interdependence, overlap)
- United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.1984) (overlap/hub conspirator supports single conspiracy)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (duplicitous or multiple conspiracies analysis)