United States v. Rose Amanor
684 F. App'x 2
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Rose Amanor was convicted after a three-day jury trial for importation of heroin and possession with intent to distribute; sentenced to concurrent 27-month terms and released January 30, 2017.
- Customs officers found a bag of fish in Amanor’s carry-on that was lined with heroin; no dispute at trial that she carried the bag and that the substance was heroin.
- Government presented testimony from multiple Customs and Homeland Security agents tying Amanor to possession; Amanor testified and gave explanations inconsistent with statements to investigators.
- Key factual dispute for the jury: whether Amanor was an unknowing ("blind") courier set up by her son, or knowingly carried a high-value shipment and consciously avoided confirming its contents.
- District court instructed the jury on conscious avoidance and possession; Amanor did not object at trial to prosecutorial remarks about her not being a blind courier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government: evidence and testimony support conviction | Amanor: insufficient evidence to prove knowledge or intent | Affirmed — evidence (possession, inconsistent testimony, circumstantial indicators) was sufficient |
| Prosecutorial remarks/due process | Government: summation comments were permissible argument | Amanor: prosecutor’s statements that she was not a blind courier denied due process | Affirmed — remarks consistent with pretrial rulings, not egregious; defendant waived by failing to object |
| Jury instruction (conscious avoidance) | Government: instruction appropriate given denial of knowledge | Amanor: challenged the instruction as improper | Affirmed — conscious-avoidance charge appropriate when possession admitted but knowledge denied |
| Plain-error review for unobjected claims | Government: no reversible plain error | Amanor: sought reversal despite no objection at trial | Affirmed — no plain error affecting outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lee, 723 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (any rational trier of fact standard)
- United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir. 1993) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct claims)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard on appeal)
- United States v. Shareef, 190 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1999) (scope of prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal)
- United States v. Ebbers, 458 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (conscious-avoidance instruction guidance)
- United States v. Aina-Marshall, 336 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) (when conscious-avoidance charge is appropriate)