United States v. Shepard-Fraser, 784 F.3d 11

Background

A large cocaine-smuggling conspiracy (June 2006–June 2008) used couriers who checked luggage in San Juan that was switched with cocaine-filled suitcases and transported to New York; leader was Manuel Santana-Cabrera ("El Boss").
José Vega-Torres cooperated with the government after arrest in New York; his testimony tied several defendants (including Correa and Shepard) to the conspiracy and provided much of the government’s direct-identification evidence.
Correa (nicknamed "El Don") was identified at trial by Vega and the government introduced coconspirator statements and evidence about a cocaine-filled suitcase seized Oct. 4, 2007. Correa testified and denied involvement.
Shepard was tied largely to a single September 9–10 trip: Vega testified she arrived in New York with suitcases, was paid $3,000, and returned to Puerto Rico; Vega later testified he personally knew her as a member of Santana’s organization.
Jury convicted both Correa and Shepard of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute; sentences were 132 months (Correa) and 128 months (Shepard). Appeals challenged identification, coconspirator hearsay, suitcase evidence, cumulative error (Correa), and sufficiency and sentencing reasonableness (Shepard).

Issues

Issue	Correa's Argument	Government's / Opposing Argument	Held
In-court identification by Vega	Identification was unduly suggestive (only male defendant at counsel table; witness prepped) and unreliable; plain error review should reverse	Identification was not police-arranged; Perry safeguards (cross-exam, counsel, jury assessment) suffice; under Biggers there was no undue suggestion or unreliability	Majority: No reversible error (would fail under either Perry or Biggers; plain-error standard not met). Dissent: would find plain error and reverse.
Admissibility of coconspirator statements (Rule 801(d)(2)(E))	Statements (nickname "El Don," Santana identifying "El Don" as bag-handler, Soler saying bag for "El Don" had $90,000) were inadmissible hearsay and not shown to be in furtherance or that Correa was the referenced coconspirator	Judge conditionally admitted statements; independent evidence (Vega’s testimony re: meetings, luggage, conversations) sufficed by preponderance to show Correa was a coconspirator and statements furthered conspiracy	No abuse of discretion; Petrozziello ruling upheld; statements admissible.
Admission of Oct. 4 suitcase evidence (relevance / Rule 403)	October 4 seizure linked to a different actor (Bencosme), not Santana; evidence irrelevant and prejudicial/confusing	Government offered it as overt-act evidence among many linking Santana’s conspiracy; other strong evidence of Santana conspiracy existed	Even if admission was erroneous, any error was harmless given the breadth of other conspiracy evidence.
Cumulative error	Multiple trial rulings together deprived Correa of a fair trial	Individual rulings non-reversible; no series of prejudicial errors shown	Cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable because no meritorious errors requiring reversal.
Shepard — sufficiency of evidence for knowledge	No proof she knew suitcases contained drugs; circumstantial facts consistent with innocence	Vega’s testimony that she was a member of Santana’s organization and the circumstances of the trip (payment, immediate handoff) permit a reasonable inference of guilty knowledge	De novo review: evidence viewed in government’s favor sufficed for a rational jury to find guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
Shepard — sentence reasonableness (procedural & substantive)	Judge failed to consider §3553(a) factors adequately; overstated disparity avoidance; requested lower sentence	Judge explicitly considered §3553(a), discussed offense seriousness, history, family, and disparity; sentence was below Guidelines range and above statutory minimum	No abuse of discretion; sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors to assess reliability of identification when procedure was suggestive)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (due process bars exclusion only when identification resulted from law-enforcement-arranged suggestive procedures)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability standard for identification evidence and role of totality of circumstances)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four-part plain-error review framework)
United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (conditional admission standard for coconspirator statements)
United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (discussion of Petrozziello rulings and proof-by-preponderance allocation)