United States v. Vanston Venner Williams
865 F.3d 1328
11th Cir.2017Background
- Night interdiction (May 9, 2015) by USCG cutter Bear of the 34-ft fishing vessel Rasputin; crew sped up and four crew members were seen via FLIR loading and jettisoning multiple bale-like packages that sank and were not recovered.
- Boarding revealed no recovered drugs, gasoline in the fish hold and empty fuel containers, no fishing gear, GPS units and a zarpe (Colombian manifest) listing Colon, Panama as next port; defendants said vessel came from Colombia and was bound for Colon but was found heading away.
- IonScan swipes taken aboard produced 13 positive cocaine hits (of 34 swipes); positives included swipes from the persons of four defendants and from areas of the vessel (not the fantail where jettisoning occurred).
- Government expert Gustavo Tirado (IonScan instructor/operator) testified interpreting IonScan outputs; district court admitted his testimony after a Daubert hearing; defense cross-examined on procedural deviations during swiping.
- Several Coast Guard officers testified (under Rule 701) that the objects observed on FLIR resembled cocaine bales from prior interdictions; the zarpe was admitted to show inconsistency between the vessel’s stated destination and its actual course.
- Jury convicted all defendants of drug conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute (≥5 kg cocaine); Williams convicted for failure to heave to; co‑defendants convicted of aiding and abetting that offense; appellate court affirmed drug convictions and Williams’s heave‑to conviction but reversed aiding/abetting convictions for lack of intent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Tirado’s IonScan expert testimony (Rule 702/Daubert) | Gov: Tirado is qualified by training/experience to interpret IonScan outputs and his testimony is relevant and reliable. | Defs: Tirado lacked scientific credentials, peer‑review, and couldn’t tie results to quantity or timing; testimony prejudicial. | Admitted: Court found Tirado qualified; testimony fit the issues and probative value outweighed prejudicial risk. |
| Admissibility of Coast Guard witnesses’ comparison of FLIR objects to cocaine bales (Rule 701 vs 702) | Gov: Lay opinion based on perceptions and prior hands‑on experience; helpful to jury. | Defs: Such comparisons are expert opinion requiring Rule 702 notice. | Admitted as lay opinion under Rule 701; comparisons were size/appearance judgments based on experience, not scientific expertise. |
| Admission of zarpe (authentication and hearsay) | Gov: Zarpe authenticated circumstantially and offered to show falsity/inconsistency (not truth of destination). | Defs: Unauthenticated foreign document and hearsay. | Admitted: Authentication via circumstances satisfied Rule 901; offered to prove inconsistency, so not hearsay. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that jettisoned packages were cocaine (and ≥5 kg) | Gov: Aggregate circumstantial evidence (FLIR, prior interdictions, IonScan positives, gasoline, behavior) supports identity and quantity. | Defs: No recovered drugs, IonScan imperfect and non‑specific, alternative innocent explanations for traces. | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in govt’s favor, a reasonable jury could find the packages were cocaine and ≥5 kg. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to heave to and aiding & abetting | Gov: Williams (master) evaded hailed orders; co‑defendants aided by jettisoning and lightening vessel. | Defs: Williams’s maneuvers could be safety responses; co‑defendants lacked intent to aid evasion—they acted to rid contraband. | Mixed: Williams’s failure‑to‑heave‑to conviction affirmed; aiding & abetting convictions reversed for co‑defendants due to insufficient proof of intent to aid evasion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (expert qualification and admissibility standards)
- United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing lay vs expert testimony from law‑enforcement experience)
- United States v. Haile, 685 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for viewing facts on sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971 (11th Cir. 1984) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable hypotheses of innocence)