United States v. Soto
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12894
1st Cir.2013Background
- Soto was convicted on 17 counts (mail, wire, and bank fraud; aggravated identity theft) after trial in the First Circuit.
- Soto used Christine Escribano’s license to purchase motorcycles and forged affidavits to transfer titles to accomplices who sold them.
- Additional scheme involved Soto using Gregory Bradley’s identity to purchase cars, with financing obtained through the same general method.
- Evidence included photocopied licenses, dealership copies, and RMV filings; Soto argued he did not know Escribano was a real person.
- Soto challenged the admission of forensic testimony about another examiner’s prior findings under the Confrontation Clause and moved for Rule 29 acquittal on AIT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIT sufficiency | Soto knew the IDs belonged to others. | Insufficient proof Soto knew the license belonged to another person. | Sufficient evidence; reasonable jury could find knowledge. |
| Confrontation Clause plain error | Agent Pickett’s testimony conveyed another examiner’s conclusions (Murphy). | No plain error; testimony was independent and cumulative. | No plain error; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (knowledge element may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Valerio, 676 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 2012) (circumstantial evidence suffices for knowledge)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (no surrogate testimony when analyst had no independent opinion)
- Ramos-González, 664 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (testimony linking to non-testifying analyst must be careful)
- Phoeun Lang, 672 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (testimonial determination and Crawford framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires prior cross-exam for testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Díaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic reports are testimonial; must confront analysts)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (non-testifying expert’s statements can be discussed if not offered for truth)