United States v. Tiem Trinh
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25147
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Trinh was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kg+ of marijuana, money laundering, unlawful monetary transactions, and perjury.
- DEA investigated Trinh and his family from 2006 onward via CS tips, surveillance, and intercepts.
- A Buffalo, NY residence was searched pursuant to a warrant based on a seventeen-page affidavit.
- Leaf fragment seized at the Buffalo residence was destroyed as having no evidentiary value.
- District court denied suppression, severance, and mistrial motions; trial proceeded with evidence of the Buffalo operation.
- Jury convicted on multiple counts; Trinh appealed asserting suppression, severance, and juror-removal issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause supported by the affidavit? | Trinh argues CS reliability was insufficient. | Trinh contends corroboration failed to establish probable cause. | Probable cause supported by totality of circumstances. |
| Staleness of information in the affidavit? | Trinh claims two-month gap undermines freshness. | Trinh contends information stale given time gap. | Information not stale; ongoing operation and corroboration maintained timeliness. |
| Particularity of the warrant; plant-growing materials seized? | Warrant did not list plant-growing chemicals, soil, planters. | Materials were equipment/essential to cultivation, within scope of warrant. | Seizure proper under common-sense interpretation of paraphernalia and corroborating affidavit. |
| Destruction of marijuana leaf before examination? | Leaf exculpatory value apparent; police acted in bad faith. | Leaf not introduced at trial; issue moot and not due process violation. | Leaf destruction not reversed; issue moot as leaf was not presented at trial. |
| Removal of juror and denial of mistrial; prejudicial impact? | Juror A removal created potential prejudice. | Court conducted thorough voir dire and gave curative instructions; no mistrial needed. | No abuse of discretion; curative instructions and procedures mitigated prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woodbury, 511 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (review of suppression rulings; de novo legal, clear-error factual)
- United States v. Charles, 213 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2000) (probable cause and warrants analysis)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality of the circumstances; probable cause standard)
- United States v. Zayas-Diaz, 95 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1996) (informant reliability and corroboration)
- United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (informant descriptions and firsthand knowledge)
- United States v. Barnard, 299 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2002) (reliability and basis of knowledge in informant corroboration)
- Khounsavanh v. United States, 113 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1997) (factors for probable cause; informant credibility)