United States v. Valdivia
88 Fed. R. Serv. 559
1st Cir.2012Background
- Valdivia was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and conspiracy to import heroin, based on a 12-day trial in Puerto Rico.
- The Aruba-based drug trafficking organization, led by José De Sousa, smuggled heroin from Venezuela/Colombia for distribution in Puerto Rico; Valdivia helped receive and distribute.
- Castro, a De Sousa courier, was seized in 2001 with heroin and phone numbers linked to Valdivia, triggering wiretap investigations.
- Aruban authorities wiretapped De Sousa’s phones; Grueninger and others were arrested; Valdivia was arrested in Puerto Rico in 2003.
- Valdivia challenged various trial and pretrial rulings, including STA dismissal, evidentiary objections, and sentencing computations.
- The district court denied relief on these grounds, and Valdivia was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment, with an emphasis on a sizable drug-quantity finding and a managerial role enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act waiver and exclusions | Valdivia argues STA dismissal was required. | Valdivia contends delays were excludable under STA provisions. | STA claim waived/forfeited; no reversible error established. |
| Judicial commentary and jury instructions | Judge’s remarks bolstered government or misled jury. | Court comments improperly influenced jurors. | No reversible error; instructions clarified issues without prejudice. |
| Admissibility of hearsay and overview testimony | Certain Estrada/overview testimonies were improper hearsay/summary. | Testimony lacked proper foundation or was prejudicial. | Harmless error; cumulative evidence supported conviction. |
| Lay vs. expert testimony by Carpio | Carpio’s statements should have been expert testimony with disclosure. | Carpio’s lay opinion fit Rule 701; disclosure not required. | Carpio’s testimony justified as lay opinion under Rule 701; not error. |
| Suppression of Aruban wiretap evidence | Aruban wiretap should be suppressed under joint-venture Fourth Amendment theory. | Minimal U.S. participation negates joint-venture impact. | Joint-venture exclusionary rule inapplicable; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (requires express ends-of-justice findings in STA exclusions)
- United States v. Pakala, 568 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (necessity of on-record ends-of-justice findings)
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (overview testimony concerns in trial practice)
- Flores-De-Jesús v. United States, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits and handling of overview testimony)
- Rosado-Pérez v. United States, 605 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (foundational basis for lay vs. expert testimony issues)