United States v. Tavarez
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23495
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lorenzo Tavarez was arrested based on information from a confidential informant who conducted two controlled buys of methamphetamine at Tavarez's apartment.
- The informant disappeared before trial, leaving the government with only circumstantial evidence and no eyewitness testimony of delivery.
- A jury convicted Tavarez on two counts of distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii).
- Tavarez requested a missing witness instruction, arguing the informant’s absence favored the defense; the district court refused.
- Tavarez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, noting no witness testified Tavarez delivered methamphetamine and that he shared the apartment with his girlfriend.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed both the missing witness instruction decision and the sufficiency-of-the-evidence ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing witness instruction applicable? | United States: informant unavailable to both; no basis for missing-witness instruction. | Tavarez: missing-witness instruction warranted because informant’s testimony would be favorable to defense and would elucidate controlled buys. | District court did not err; no missing-witness instruction required. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction? | United States: circumstantial evidence (informant seen entering building, money and fingerprint corroboration) supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Tavarez: lack of direct eyewitness delivery and residence with girlfriend create reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jurors could infer Tavarez sold the drugs to the informant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Macedo, 406 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review of jury instructions)
- United States v. DiSantis, 565 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussing missing witness instruction discretion)
- United States v. Brock, 417 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2005) (standard for missing witness instruction)
- United States v. Mahone, 537 F.2d 922 (7th Cir. 1976) (requirements for missing witness instruction: relevant noncumulative testimony; witness peculiarly in party's power to produce)
- United States v. Easley, 977 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1992) (informant absence not attributable to government does not entitle missing witness instruction)
- United States v. Pizarro, 717 F.2d 336 (7th Cir. 1983) (missing witness instruction inappropriate where informant's absence is not due to government misconduct)
- United States v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1988) (informant unavailable to defense does not automatically trigger missing witness instruction)
- United States v. Bramble, 680 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1982) (informant bias does not equal control by one party)
- United States v. Addo, 989 F.2d 238 (7th Cir. 1993) (informant's unavailability does not alone create entitlement to instruction)
- United States v. Christ, 513 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008) (elucidation of issues by witnesses and standard for evaluating testimony)