United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez
741 F.3d 179
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Five defendants Acosta, Fournier, Castillo, Rodríguez, and Guzmán were charged in a consolidated trial with conspiring to possess and distribute illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility; some defendants also faced firearm-related counts.
- The indictment covered 2003–2007 and labeled Rodríguez and Guzmán as leaders, Acosta and Castillo as sellers, and Fournier as a facilitator; dozens more co-conspirators were indicted and some testified for the government.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on the drug-conspiracy counts for all five defendants, with Acosta additionally being found guilty on the drug conspiracy despite a finding regarding proximity to housing.
- Sentences imposed included Acosta 151 months; Fournier 78 months on the drug conspiracy plus 60 months on the gun count; Castillo 120 months; Rodríguez 240 months plus 60 months on the gun count; Guzmán life imprisonment plus 60 months on the gun count.
- Acosta challenged a courtroom closure during jury selection; the court balanced Sixth Amendment public-trial rights against other interests, but the claim was held waived because defense counsel failed to object.
- Acosta also challenged the denial of calling his wife as an alibi witness; the district court precluded the alibi under Rule 12.1, and the appellate court held the challenge waived, with alternatives discussed under Rule 12.1(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the courtroom closure waiver valid? | Acosta asserts public-trial right was violated during jury selection. | Acosta contends closure infringed Sixth Amendment rights and was not properly justified. | Waived; no reversible error. |
| Did the district court err by excluding Acosta's alibi witness under Rule 12.1? | Acosta couldn't present alibi testimony due to notice issues and Jencks material timing. | Court should have allowed alibi under Rule 12.1(d) for a meaningful defense. | Waived; no reversible error; Rule 12.1(d) not required here. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to sustain Acosta's drug-conspiracy conviction? | Serrano and Martínez testimony supported conspiracy participation. | Evidence was insufficient to prove conspiratorial knowledge and participation. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Did the sentencing under Alleyne violate the defendant's rights by relying on conspiracy-wide quantities? | Alleyne requires individualized quantities proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | individualized findings were not properly derived for sentencing. | No plain error; individualized, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt findings supported sentencing within guidelines. |
| Did Rodríguez prove a prejudicial variance and was the gun-count proved beyond a reasonable doubt? | Indictment overstated involvement; variance prejudiced defense; gun-count unsupported. | Trial proved Rodríguez's leadership and facilitation; sufficient evidence for gun count. | Variance not prejudicial; gun-count evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public trial right's balance against interests)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (requireful closure standards and alternatives)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (closure considerations and availability of alternatives)
- Taylor v. United States, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (right to present witnesses; compulsory process)
- United States v. Polanco, 634 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard for sufficiency reviews; conspiracy quantity findings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (S. Ct. 2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be submitted to the jury)
- United States v. Rodríguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (aiding and abetting interpretations in conspiracy)
- García-Torres, 280 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (permitted inferences for conspiracy participation)