United States v. Santana
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113692
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Four defendants were tried on a Fourth Superseding Indictment charging conspiracies to distribute cocaine, travel for kidnapping, and related gun offenses; Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII alleged cocaine distribution, kidnapping, and firearms offenses, with Soto also charged with obstruction of justice; jury convictions on most counts with Espinoza acquitted on Count I and Respardo-Ramirez acquitted on Count V; trial included testimony from Freeman, Gudino, Bravo-Garcia and several police officers; evidence included drug purchases, kidnapping plots, and guns recovered from a minivan; Detroit-Chicago drug debt scheme tied to the conspiracy; Soto challenged four warrants and counsel’s effectiveness; the court denied acquittals and granted partial acquittal on Count VIII for Respardo-Ramirez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Count I conspiracy to distribute cocaine | Bravo-Garcia testified to Soto and Respardo-Ramirez delivering cocaine | Respardo-Ramirez delivered drugs without an agreement | Sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Count II possession with intent to distribute cocaine | Delivery of cocaine to Freeman for testing satisfied the statute | No transfer of possession occurred or intent to distribute shown | Delivery for testing satisfies transfer/possession element; conviction upheld for Espinoza and co-defendants |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Counts V and VI conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping | Witnesses testified to planned kidnapping to collect debt | Credibility concerns; insufficient to prove conspiracy/ kidnapping | Sufficient evidence supports both conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping convictions; credibility issues for Rule 33 do not merit new trial |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Counts VII and VIII brandishing a firearm | Co-conspirators possessed and used firearms during the crime; Pinkerton liability asserted | Constructive possession lacking; no Pinkerton instruction given; minimal evidence of active use | Respardo-Ramirez not liable on Count VIII; brandishing convictions upheld for Santana/Espinoza on Counts VII and VIII; Pinkerton theory not applied |
| Defendant Soto’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to challenge four searches | Trial counsel were ineffective for not challenging searches; merits may be addressed on Rule 33 | Counsel’s performance deficient and prejudicial; evidentiary hearing desirable | No evidentiary hearing required; no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim denied in part; searches challenged but exclusionary relief declined |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency of evidence and Rule 29 standard guidance)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard for federal convictions)
- United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency of evidence—any rational trier could convict)
- United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2003) (testimony by co-conspirators can support conspiracy)
- United States v. Stewart, 628 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2010) (Rule 33 weight of evidence and credibility eval)