United States v. Vasquez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17087
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Three co-defendants (Perez-Duarte, Echeverría, Vasquez) arrested after an attempted sale of ~5 kg methamphetamine; drugs found in the bed of Vasquez’s truck and key evidence linked defendants to a hotel room where they were found.
- Perez-Duarte pleaded guilty; Echeverría and Vasquez tried jointly. First joint trial ended in mistrial after deadlocked jury; both testified at that trial and were cross-examined.
- At the retrial neither Echeverría nor Vasquez testified; transcripts of their first-trial testimony were read to the jury. New evidence introduced: a jailhouse informant (Sanchez-Alvarez) testified that Echeverría confessed implicating both men; a California officer identified Vasquez as matching a 1998 heroin-conviction photograph.
- Additional evidence: extensive phone-call records linking Echeverría and Vasquez, a hidden car key in the hotel room wall, attempts to flush ID/data cards, and statements calling Echeverría Perez-Duarte’s “partner.”
- Jury convicted Echeverría and Vasquez of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a), § 846); both received within-guidelines sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Echeverría's knowing participation | Govt: concert of action, jailhouse confession, physical and phone-link evidence show knowledge | Echeverría: record lacks proof he knowingly joined conspiracy | Conviction affirmed; evidence (concert of action + admissible jailhouse confession) sufficient; not a manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Substantive reasonableness of Echeverría's sentence | Govt: within guideline range; presumptively reasonable | Echeverría: should have downward departure | Affirmed; within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable and no guideline misinterpretation shown |
| Bruton / Confrontation Clause (admission of Echeverría’s jailhouse confession through Sanchez‑Alvarez at joint trial) | Vasquez: admission violated Confrontation Clause because co‑defendant’s out‑of‑court confession implicated him without cross‑examination | Govt: confession was non‑testimonial; admitting testimony from third‑party about it did not trigger Bruton/Crawford protections | Affirmed; majority circuit view limits Bruton to testimonial statements; Sanchez‑Alvarez’s testimony about a nontestimonial jailhouse confession did not plainly erringly violate rights |
| Other evidentiary and sentencing claims by Vasquez (prior conviction evidence, AK‑47 photo, Alleyne/mandatory minimum) | Vasquez: prior conviction/photograph prejudicial; mandatory minimum required jury finding on prior conviction | Govt: prior conviction admissible under Rule 404(b); retrial objections not preserved; Almendarez‑Torres controls on prior‑conviction sentencing fact | Affirmed: prior conviction admissible; photo objection not renewed at retrial; insufficient preserved error; Alleyne does not overrule Almendarez‑Torres here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1998) (agreement may be inferred from concert of action)
- United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 1993) (concert‑of‑action inference applied to conspiracy knowledge)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (statement of non‑testifying co‑defendant may violate Confrontation Clause when admitted against codefendant)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation/right to cross‑examine)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior‑conviction facts may be found by judge for sentencing enhancement)
- United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2013) (within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)