United States v. Rios-Morales, 878 F.3d 978

Background

Defendant Jose Rios-Morales was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >50 grams of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute; sentenced to 292 months (bottom of Guidelines range).
Key government witness Felipe Sifuentes (plea agreement) testified that Rios-Morales introduced him to a new supplier (Rios’s brother Omar) after prior California procurement/mail-based operations; payments and per-pound splits were described.
A shipment hidden in a car transported by commercial hauler was intercepted in Oklahoma; Sifuentes coordinated receipt, called Rios-Morales, and both were arrested at the car in Rios-Morales’ apartment parking lot.
The government introduced prior-act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) about earlier California trips and joint packaging/shipping to prove knowledge, motive, and intent; the district court gave a limiting instruction.
During trial jurors reported a suspicious man in the courthouse parking lot; the district judge conducted individual in camera juror interviews, moved jurors to a secure lot, and allowed the trial to proceed after determining no juror bias.
On appeal Rios-Morales raised claims that admission of 404(b) evidence was erroneous, multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurred, Sifuentes committed perjury/omitted material facts, the court mishandled juror taint, and cumulative error justified reversal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov’t)	Defendant's Argument (Rios-Morales)	Held
Admissibility of prior-act (404(b)) evidence	404(b) evidence admissible to prove motive, knowledge, intent; corroborative and probative	Prior California trips irrelevant to money-man role; prejudicial (possible undisclosed exculpatory evidence)	Admitted: relevant for motive/knowledge/intent; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instruction given.
Prosecutorial misconduct in argument/evidence	Closing/opening and limited redirect statements were fair argument or based on admitted evidence; any error not plain or not affecting outcome	Multiple comments and references vouched for witness, misstated facts, appealed improperly to juror emotion—requiring reversal	No plain error: most statements not “plain” error; none showed reasonable probability of affecting verdict.
Alleged perjury/intentional omissions by Sifuentes	Witness credibility issues were for jury; government did not knowingly rely on perjured testimony	Sifuentes intentionally omitted/stated falsehoods about trip reasons (staying with Rios’s cousin) and lying to police—material and prosecutor knowingly used it	No new trial: omissions/ambiguities were explored at trial; where cross-examination revealed truth, government did not rely on false testimony; no showing of prosecutor knowledge of perjury.
Juror taint / handling of parking-lot incident	Court’s in camera interviews, precautions, and juror assurances sufficed to protect impartiality	Court failed to ask all jurors if they linked the incident to the case; some jurors expressed concern about intimidation—requiring mistrial	No abuse of discretion: judge permitted individualized inquiry, observed demeanor, jurors uniformly denied linking incident to case; precautions alleviated concerns.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir.) (standard for 404(b) admissibility and appellate review)
United States v. MacKay, 715 F.3d 807 (10th Cir.) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403/404(b))
United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.) (exclusion of admissible evidence is extraordinary remedy)
United States v. Solon, 596 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (plain-error review framework for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)
United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681 (10th Cir.) (definition of “plain” error)
United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494 (10th Cir.) (when prosecutor’s remarks constitute impermissible vouching)
United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir.) (attorneys’ arguments are not evidence; limiting instructions weigh against error)
United States v. Guerrero, 517 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.) (404(b) limiting-instruction principles)
United States v. Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir.) (elements required to obtain new trial for use of alleged perjured testimony)
United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692 (10th Cir.) (materiality and jury’s ability to assess witness credibility)
United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 (10th Cir.) (trial court’s wide discretion in juror competency/impartiality determinations)
United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir.) (deference to trial judge’s assessment of juror demeanor and ambiguous statements)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to trial court’s appraisal of juror impartiality and demeanor)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (Sup. Ct.) (trial judge’s advantage in evaluating juror answers)
United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (10th Cir.) (plain-error prong that error must affect substantial rights)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonable probability standard for showing prejudice)
United States v. Oberle, 136 F.3d 1414 (10th Cir.) (contextual evaluation of prosecutor’s characterizing language)
United States v. Jones, 468 F.3d 704 (10th Cir.) (references to defendant’s character are not always reversible)
Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.) (permissibility of prosecutorial appeals to justice in argument)
United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir.) (no cumulative-error reversal where no individual error found)