United States v. Vazquez-Rivera
665 F.3d 351
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- FBI undercover operation posed as a 14-year-old girl in LatinChat and MSN Messenger; contact with an individual using screen names Secreto and IncestoPR.
- Secreto sent Patsychula14 child-pornography images and a webcam masturbation video; identity of Secreto linked to email bienhotpr@hotmail.com.
- IP and subscriber records tied the email to William Vazquez-Rivera in Camuy, Puerto Rico.
- Agents executed a search warrant at Vazquez's home; computers contained over 100 child-porn images and password-protected subdirectories; some images matched chat profiles.
- Trial (Feb 2010) featured extensive testimony from Agent Segarra; Vazquez was convicted on six counts; he appealed alleging improper testimony and related issues.
- Appellate panel vacated and remanded, holding that the government’s improper testimony undermined the trial’s integrity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Segarra's overview/lay opinion testimony was admissible. | Vázquez argues testimony was improper overview/ultimate-issue opinion. | Vázquez contends Segarra lacked personal perception basis for statements. | Improper; plain-error reversal warranted. |
| Whether Segarra's identification of Vazquez as the chat participant was proper. | Vázquez contends identification relied on totality of the investigation, not personal knowledge. | Vázquez argues identification should be grounded in personal observations. | Improper; plain-error reversal warranted. |
| Whether the webcam-video testimony identifying Vazquez was proper. | Vázquez challenges identification as based on investigation rather than personal observation. | Vázquez argues testimony was based on events in evidence and observations. | Improper; plain-error reversal warranted. |
| Whether admission of portions of an FBI form memorializing Vazquez's interview with his son was error. | Vázquez preserved challenge to the form's contents; argued it contained exculpatory material. | Government contends form was not properly admitted. | Not decisive on this record; majority undertook broader review of testimony and found prejudicial error. |
| Whether the prosecution's redirect/recall questioning of Segarra amounted to plain error. | Vázquez claims repeated identifications during redirect improperly framed the evidence. | Government argues questions clarified testimony for the jury. | Plain error; contributed to prejudice in light of improper testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (overviews problematic when previewing case; limits on lay opinion)
- United States v. Flores-de-Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits on overview testimony; imprimatur concern)
- United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (limitations on lay opinions about ultimate issues)
- United States v. Rosado-Pérez, 605 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (lay opinion must be based on personal knowledge)
- United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (descriptions of investigation appropriate when descriptive, not conclusory)
- United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711 (1st Cir. 2007) (Weinstein-style discussion of procedural foundations for testimony)
- United States v. Ríos-Hernández, 645 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-error review framework in context of trial testimony)
- United States v. Lamela, 942 F.2d 100 (1st Cir. 1991) (overview testimony context in criminal prosecutions)
- United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (weight of circumstantial evidence; equal to direct evidence)