United States v. Rodriguez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13566
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Rodriguez convicted of three counts of distributing cocaine base; evidence included a cooperating witness and video/audiotaped recordings of transactions.
- Jury was told most exhibits were in the jury room system (JERS) but video/audiotapes had to be played in the courtroom on request.
- Two alternates were impaneled and instructed not to deliberate; alternates and regular jurors ate lunch together and were reminded alternates must not discuss the case.
- During deliberations the jury requested playback of certain audio/video exhibits; alternates were initially in the courtroom and at times seated in the jury box while some recordings were played; the jury also conferred in open court about which excerpts to view.
- Defense sought (at sidebar) a limiting instruction about jurors drawing adverse inferences from police possession of Rodriguez's photographs but did not request the instruction in the final charge nor object when none was given.
- Rodriguez was sentenced as a career offender based on prior convictions; he argued this involved unconstitutional judicial factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presence of alternates in courtroom while jury reviewed exhibits | Alternates in courtroom exposed jurors to outside influence, violating Rule 24 and Sixth Amendment impartial jury right | Court said alternates had been instructed not to deliberate and were observed by the judge, mitigating risk | No abuse of discretion; presence in courtroom under judicial supervision was permissible |
| Placement of alternates in jury box during audio playback | Close proximity risked influencing jurors | Alternates had instructions and any violation would be visible and correctable | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error or prejudice shown |
| Directing jury to confer in open court about which video excerpts to view | Open-court conferring and judge's remarks could chill deliberations and influence jurors | Any alleged chilling was speculative; jury had already decided excerpts and judge repeatedly offered full playback; no prejudice shown | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error—no prejudice, so survives review |
| Failure to give limiting instruction about police possession of photographs | Court should have instructed jury not to draw adverse inference from police having photos | Defense counsel declined to request the instruction after sidebar; decision was likely strategic; court need not give unrequested limiting instruction sua sponte | No plain error; failure to give unrequested limiting instruction not a basis for reversal |
| Sentencing as career offender based on prior convictions | Judicial factfinding on priors violated Sixth Amendment | Prior-conviction exception (Almendarez-Torres) permits using prior convictions to enhance sentence | Rejected Sixth Amendment claim; prior-conviction exception controls; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (jury secrecy protects deliberations; presence of alternates not presumptively prejudicial)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (narrow exception allowing sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (reaffirmed Almendarez-Torres as still good law despite Sixth Amendment holdings)
- United States v. Jones, 748 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion and plain-error review)
- United States v. Batchu, 724 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (plain-error test explained)
- United States v. Paladin, 748 F.3d 438 (1st Cir. 2014) (prior-conviction sentencing issue and Sixth Amendment analysis)