United States v. Telesforo Lozano
711 F. App'x 934
11th Cir.2017Background
- Lozano was stopped for a traffic violation; after officers completed the citation, Officer Barnes extended the stop for a dog sniff and ultimately searched Lozano’s truck, discovering >500 grams of cocaine; Lozano was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
- At the time of the extended detention officers noted factors: clean exterior/dirty interior, travel from Mexico toward Atlanta, vague story about picking up a car, lack of money/tow hitch, recent out-of-state registration, signs of vehicle tampering, and nervous behavior.
- Lozano moved to suppress evidence from the extended stop, sought a continuance to obtain his wife’s foreign deposition and other materials, moved for a new trial challenging expert testimony and prosecutorial conduct, and challenged the willful blindness jury instruction.
- The district court denied suppression, denied the continuance, admitted Special Agent Overstreet as an expert, refused a new trial on prosecutorial-misconduct grounds, and instructed the jury on willful blindness; Lozano appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all issues, finding reasonable suspicion justified the stop’s extension, the continuance and evidence proffer were not sufficiently shown to be admissible or material, expert testimony was proper, no prosecutorial misconduct was proved, and the willful-blindness instruction was supported by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Lozano's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress: extension of traffic stop for dog sniff | Stop was completed after issuance of warning ticket; no reasonable suspicion to prolong detention | Totality of facts (behavior, travel, vehicle signs, nervousness, officer experience) provided reasonable suspicion | Affirmed — extension and dog sniff were supported by reasonable suspicion |
| Motion to continue / admit wife's foreign deposition and similar-case materials | Needed continuance to obtain wife’s testimony and evidence of "blind mule" schemes; foreign deposition necessary | No proof wife was unavailable or materials were admissible; hearsay and not shown material or noncumulative | Affirmed — no exigent circumstances, hearsay/unproven relevance, and no prejudice shown |
| Admission of Special Agent Overstreet as expert | Agent testimony was prejudicial and ventured on ultimate issue of defendant’s state of mind | Expert testimony about drug-trafficking MO is admissible and probative; agent did not state defendant’s mental state | Affirmed — testimony admissible under Rule 702 and did not violate Rule 704(b) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for failing to correct allegedly false testimony | Government failed to correct Overstreet’s allegedly false cross-exam testimony about blind mules | No evidence that testimony was false or that the government knowingly used/failed to correct perjured testimony; verdict not likely affected | Affirmed — appellant failed to show knowingly used/uncorrected material falsehood |
| Willful-blindness jury instruction | Instruction not warranted because no proof Lozano consciously avoided knowing high probability drugs were present; Global-Tech purportedly conflicts | Evidence (nervous behavior, travel context, evasive answers, searches) supported inference of deliberate ignorance; Global-Tech is civil and not controlling here | Affirmed — instruction supported by evidence and not inconsistent with governing criminal precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stops constitute Fourth Amendment seizures)
- United States v. Pruitt, 174 F.3d 1215 (factors supporting further suspicion, e.g., ownership/authority inconsistencies)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (relevance of high-crime location to suspicion)
- United States v. Garcia, 447 F.3d 1327 (drug-enforcement agents may testify to narcotics-operations MO)
- United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961 (limits on expert testimony about defendants’ mental state; standard for willful blindness instruction)
- United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206 (prosecutor’s duty to correct false testimony and materiality standard)
- United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036 (elements for showing prosecutor used or failed to correct false testimony)
- United States v. Kahn, 794 F.3d 1288 (Rule 15 and requirements to use foreign depositions in criminal cases)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (definition of willful blindness in civil patent context; distinguished from criminal jury instructions)