United States v. Santiago-Mendez
691 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants Santiago, Domínguez, Cortés, and Ruperto, Puerto Rico Police Department officers, were charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846, and were convicted on count one with three also convicted on count two.
- Trial evidence showed a pattern of fabricating cases by planting controlled substances, aided by a 'black box' of drugs, and instructing officers to ensure positive arrests when searches were not initially productive.
- Cooperating witnesses Muñiz (Division director), Vélez, and Bosques testified about the high-level methods, the black box, and numerous planting instances, corroborated by audio and video recordings.
- The government argued § 841(a)(1) applied to officers who unlawfully participated in drug distribution by facilitating and planting drugs to create arrests; the defense argued such acts do not constitute possession with intent to distribute or lack the requisite mens rea.
- The district court denied Rule 29 motions; the First Circuit affirmed the § 241 conspiracy conviction and count two convictions (with Part II.C. challenges) while upholding most sentencing determinations, and the dissent argued the count two interpretation stretched the statute beyond its intended scope.
- The dissent would reverse the count two convictions and remand for resentencing based only on the count one conspiracy, arguing the government failed to prove the specific intent to distribute under § 841(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §241 conspiracy evidence | Santiago et al. lacked proof of conspiratorial intent and injury to rights | Gov’t failed to prove a conspiratorial agreement and intent under color of state law | Convictions affirmed |
| Sufficiency of count two (§841(a)(1) & 846) conspiracy evidence | Evidence did not establish specific intent to distribute | Planting drugs to fabricate arrests falls within distribution and supports conspiracy | Convictions affirmed |
| Domínguez drug-quantity sentencing | Quantity was not reasonably foreseeable to Domínguez | District court properly attributed quantity via individualized determination | No clear error; sentence affirmed |
| Ruperto sentencing guideline application | District court erred in applying § 2J1.2 instead of § 2H1.1 and in enhancements | Guidelines properly applied; 2H1.1 and supervisory enhancements warranted | Guidelines applied as the majority held; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 617 F.3d 581 (1st Cir. 2010) (insufficient evidence standard for Rule 29 review; evidence may be circumstantial or direct)
- United States v. López-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (plausible rendition standard; sufficiency review)
- United States v. García-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2007) (elements of possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Boidi, 568 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (broad interpretation of 'distribute' under § 841(a)(1))
- United States v. Santistevan, 39 F.3d 250 (10th Cir. 1994) (non-requirement of motive for establishing distribution; context for specific intent)