United States v. Ruben Vargas-Ocampo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5575
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Vargas-Ocampo was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute; he received concurrent 78-month sentences.
- On July 12, 2011, CBP helicopter and ground agents observed a pickup leaving the Rio Grande area while rafts crossed toward Mexico; agents saw packages in the truck and surveillance “scouts” nearby.
- Ground agents chased the truck; Vargas-Ocampo abandoned the vehicle, jumped a fence, was found in a garage holding a push-to-talk radio and a cell phone that subsequently received multiple calls.
- Agents recovered 84 packages (~430 kg) of marijuana from the truck; the truck was registered to Maria Alvarez.
- Vargas-Ocampo preserved a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, arguing that the incriminating inferences were countered by benign explanations, invoking the circuit’s “equipoise rule.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fifth Circuit should continue to apply the "equipoise rule" when reviewing sufficiency of evidence | Vargas-Ocampo argued convictions must be reversed when evidence is in equipoise (equally supports guilt and innocence) | Government urged adherence to Jackson v. Virginia's deferential standard and rejection of a separate equipoise test | Court abandoned the "equipoise rule" as unhelpful and inconsistent with Jackson; refused to apply it going forward |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy conviction under Jackson v. Virginia | Vargas-Ocampo contended circumstantial facts had benign explanations and did not prove agreement, knowledge, and voluntary participation | Government relied on timing/location of rafts, quantity of marijuana, scouts’ proximity/actions, push-to-talk radio, and incoming calls to show agreement/knowledge/participation | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Whether appellate reconsideration under Jackson permits fine-grained parsing of factual inferences | Vargas-Ocampo implied appellate parsing could find equipoise and create reasonable doubt | Government argued Jackson requires deference and presumption that jury resolved conflicts for prosecution | Court reiterated Jackson forbids fine-grained factual parsing by appellate courts and requires deferring to jury’s resolutions |
| Whether other formulations of Jackson-based review remain available | Vargas-Ocampo sought reversal under circuit precedent applying equipoise | Government maintained traditional Jackson inquiries (rational inferences, non-speculative) suffice | Court preserved Jackson-based review (e.g., whether inferences are rational vs. speculative) but rejected only the equipoise formulation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920 (5th Cir.) (describing the circuit’s prior articulation of the "equipoise rule")
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: affirm if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060 (2012) (appellate courts may not engage in fine-grained factual parsing inconsistent with Jackson)
- Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (2011) (reinforcing Jackson’s requirement that appellate courts presume juries resolved conflicting inferences for prosecution)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010) (Jackson standard reiterated)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. en banc) (example of conscientious application of Jackson in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Mireles, 896 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.) (circumstantial evidence may be conclusive when considered jointly)
- United States v. Misher, 99 F.3d 664 (5th Cir.) (elements of drug conspiracy: agreement, knowledge, voluntary participation)