971 F.3d 499
5th Cir.2020Background
- FBI received a tip that ~10 pounds of methamphetamine were stored at an El Paso house; a cooperating informant arranged a controlled buy from Carla Dominguez.
- Agents surveilled Dominguez; she received a black bag (observed handed through a car window) and was intercepted with a purse containing ten bundles (4.2 kg) of methamphetamine.
- Agents later searched a Byway Drive residence (with consent) and found additional methamphetamine (1.65 kg) and 47 kg marijuana in suitcases; Dominguez testified the items had been left in her trunk by a third party (Juan Diaz).
- Dominguez testified Crittenden moved the bags out of their home (he told agents he thought they were marijuana) and, at her request, retrieved one bag from the Byway residence without being told its contents.
- A jury convicted both on conspiracy and possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts; the district court granted Crittenden a new trial on the possession count, finding the record did not prove he knew the bags contained a scheduled controlled substance.
- The Government appealed the new-trial grant as to the possession count; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant (majority), holding the district court did not abuse its discretion; Judge Costa dissented, arguing the evidence and confession supported the jury verdict and the new-trial grant improperly overrode the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion in granting a Rule 33 new trial on possession count | Grant was error; evidence (moving bags, retrieving a bag, Crittenden’s statement he thought bags contained marijuana) sufficed to prove knowledge | New trial proper because record lacks proof Crittenden knew bags contained a scheduled controlled substance (not mere belief) | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; judge permissibly reweighed evidence and found insufficient proof of knowledge |
| Whether evidence established defendant "knew" he possessed a scheduled controlled substance under §841(a) | Testimony and circumstantial inferences show knowledge (including his statement he believed bags contained marijuana) | Prosecution failed to prove knowledge of a scheduled substance or of identity (meth vs marijuana); belief is insufficient absent deliberate ignorance | Held for defendant on sufficiency of proof of knowledge; belief that contents were marijuana did not establish required knowledge of a scheduled substance |
| Whether a defendant’s belief that the bags contained marijuana (rather than meth) satisfies mens rea after McFadden | Government argued mistaken belief about which drug may still show knowledge of a scheduled substance | Court emphasized McFadden: knowledge satisfied by knowing item is a scheduled substance or knowing its identity; here record showed only belief (at best) of marijuana, not knowledge of a scheduled substance’s identity | Court did not base grant on confusion between drugs; it held belief alone insufficient to prove statutory knowledge under McFadden |
| Whether district court improperly relied on sentencing concerns or other impermissible factors in granting new trial | Gov asserted judge’s oral remarks indicated sentencing concerns motivated the new-trial grant (improper) | District court maintained legal basis in written opinion; oral comments aside, written opinion grounded grant on insufficient proof of knowledge | Court declined to consider stray oral remarks if inconsistent with written opinion; affirmed new trial as within discretion and legally supported |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015) (defines knowledge requirement for controlled-substances offenses)
- United States v. Araiza-Jacobo, 917 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2019) (belief is insufficient to prove knowledge absent additional factors like deliberate ignorance)
- United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (deliberate avoidance can satisfy knowledge in certain circumstances)
- United States v. Robertson, 110 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1997) (district court may weigh credibility on Rule 33 new-trial motions)
- United States v. Arnold, 416 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2005) (district courts have authority to reassess evidence credibility when considering a new trial)
- United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for district-court new-trial decisions)
- United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (a new trial ordinarily is inappropriate unless a miscarriage of justice or weight of evidence preponderates against verdict)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (a district court abuses discretion when it makes an error of law)