United States v. Terry Pierre Louis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12298
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Customs received a tip that the coastal freighter Ana Cecilia was returning from Haiti with narcotics; an initial four-day ship search found nothing.
- Surveillance later observed two large sealed cardboard boxes removed from the vessel and placed on a dock; Borgella (ship owner) directed a white Nissan to park near the boxes and two men loaded them into the car’s backseat.
- Terry Pierre Louis drove the Nissan briefly with Borgella walking alongside; after law enforcement blocked the car, Louis fled and was later found to have two sealed boxes in his backseat containing 111 bricks of cocaine.
- Louis was tried for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841); he did not testify at trial.
- Government’s evidence: surveillance photos/videos, Louis’s presence around the shipyard, and his flight when approached by law enforcement; no direct evidence of Louis’s knowledge about the boxes’ contents.
- Jury convicted on both counts; Louis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge that the boxes contained a controlled substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Louis knew boxes contained a controlled substance for § 841 possession charge | Presence near boxes and flight show consciousness of guilt and thus knowledge | No direct or strong circumstantial evidence that Louis knew boxes contained drugs; mere presence/flight insufficient | Reversed — insufficient evidence of knowledge required under § 841 |
| Whether evidence proved Louis knowingly joined a drug conspiracy under § 846 | Association with Borgella, handling/transporting boxes, and flight show participation in conspiracy | No proof Louis knew the object of any agreement was a controlled substance; no communications or acts showing agreement to a drug conspiracy | Reversed — insufficient evidence that Louis knew essential nature of conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (burden on government to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. _ (knowledge element requires defendant knew he was dealing with a controlled substance)
- United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018 (elements required to prove conspiracy under § 846)
- United States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278 (government must prove defendant knew essential nature of conspiracy)
- United States v. Ohayon, 483 F.3d 1281 (defendant unaware of possessing the drugs is not aware of conspiracy’s nature)
- United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298 (knowledge that substance is controlled required for § 841)
- United States v. Quilca-Carpio, 118 F.3d 719 (entrustment inference where defendant entrusted with large quantity of drugs)