United States v. Santos-Soto
799 F.3d 49
1st Cir.2015Background
- Santos and Plaza, former Arecibo police agents, were jointly tried and convicted of (1) conspiracy to violate civil rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and (2) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846). They appeal only Count 2 convictions.
- February 2007: undercover agent Rodríguez filed a false affidavit stating he and an informant (Hernández) bought two ounces of cocaine from Aquino and González-Medina; in fact Hernández had been given the cocaine beforehand by fellow officers Eggy and Tuti to plant on the suspects.
- July 5, 2007: a planned buy‑bust was altered because Hernández already had cocaine given by Eggy and Tuti; Hernández told Rodríguez he had purchased 50 baggies from Aquino; Plaza allegedly told Hernández to buy the drugs and later demanded the drugs at the arrest scene, saying to Aquino “This is yours.”
- After the July arrests, Santos and Plaza instructed Agent González‑Vélez to tell the district attorney the drugs were seized from Aquino, despite González‑Vélez telling them the facts were different; Santos encouraged him to stick to the false story and later admitted instructing him to "charge Aquino as if the drugs had been found in his possession." Gonzalez‑Vélez cooperated with the government.
- Phone records showed spikes of contemporaneous calls between Plaza and Eggy/Tuti around the February and July incidents; Plaza initiated many of those calls. Santos’s phone records were not subpoenaed.
- At trial the jury convicted both defendants on both counts. On appeal the First Circuit reversed Santos’s Count 2 conviction for insufficient evidence but affirmed Plaza’s Count 2 conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Santos knowingly joined drug‑distribution conspiracy | Santos joined the conspiracy by encouraging González‑Vélez to lie and by other actions (government says that was her joining) | Santos lacked evidence she knew drugs were not from Aquino/González‑Medina; submitting drugs for testing and assigning warrants were not participation in drug conspiracy | Reversed: evidence insufficient. Encouraging false testimony showed civil‑rights conspiracy but not knowledge of drug‑distribution conspiracy; no proof Santos knew the drugs came from officers who intended to plant them |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Plaza knowingly joined drug‑distribution conspiracy | Plaza knowingly participated: directed Hernández to buy specified amount, sought/possessed the drugs at arrest scene, instructed González‑Vélez to lie; phone records show coordination with suppliers | Plaza argued calls may be innocent (longstanding coworker ties), content of calls unknown, testimony conflicting, and other possible witnesses not called | Affirmed: cumulative circumstantial evidence (calls pattern, calls with suppliers, directing Hernández, possessing/claiming the bundle, instructing lying) allowed a reasonable jury to find knowledge and intent to further drug conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beltrán, 503 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Trinidad‑Acosta, 773 F.3d 298 (1st Cir.) (circumstantial proof of conspiracy; deference to jury credibility calls)
- United States v. Acosta‑Colón, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir.) (must know of and voluntarily participate in conspiracy)
- United States v. García‑Torres, 280 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (ancillary acts require knowledge that they foster a drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Mena‑Robles, 4 F.3d 1026 (1st Cir.) (cumulative evidence may sustain conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (focus on whole evidentiary presentation; reasonable inferences suffice)
- United States v. Geer, 923 F.2d 892 (1st Cir.) (inference of intent from conduct and communications)
- United States v. Cortés‑Cabán, 691 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (law‑enforcement plan to plant drugs can satisfy specific intent to distribute)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S.) (prosecutorial discretion not for the court to second‑guess)