United States v. Villegas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17507
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- A confidential informant told the FBI Villegas planned to rob an armored car, triggering an undercover operation.
- Recorded meetings and calls between Garibay (informant) and Villegas detailed planning of the robbery, including weapon use and surveillance.
- On April 27, Villegas handed Garibay stolen license plates in a Walgreens parking lot and was arrested nearby with related evidence (garage door opener, vest, etc.).
- Villegas was charged with attempted Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting; Garibay’s role and potential bias were explored during trial.
- Evidence at trial included video/audio recordings, surveillance, and Villegas’s statements; defense challenged admissibility of other-crimes evidence and a missing witness instruction was sought but denied.
- The district court ruled on several evidentiary and sentencing issues, including admission of a prior conviction and a five-level firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Villegas lacked a substantial step to robbery. | Evidence showed only preparation, not intent. | Sufficient evidence supported a substantial step toward robbery. |
| Missing witness instruction | Garibay’s unavailability warranted instruction. | Garibay was pragmatically available; instruction unnecessary. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying missing witness instruction. |
| Admission of prior conviction and other acts | Door opened by defense cross-examining agent and related questions. | Evidence of drug activity and prior conviction should be inadmissible. | Court did not abuse discretion; door opened and limiting instructions given; prejudicial effect not undue. |
| Five-level firearm enhancement | Villegas possessed a gun during the offense and should receive a 5-point enhancement. | Garibay’s possession should not trigger enhancement against Villegas. | Enhancement properly applied due to reasonably foreseeable possession by an accomplice in preparation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gallardo, 497 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2007) (view evidence in light favorable to the government for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000) (defining substantial step toward crime)
- United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 1997) (establishing framework for intent to commit offense)
- United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1985) (conduct just before crime supports substantial step)
- United States v. Rogers, 542 F.3d 197 (7th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error considerations with limiting instructions)
- United States v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1988) (informant status does not automatically render testimony unavailable)
- United States v. Mahone, 537 F.2d 922 (7th Cir. 1976) (pragmatic unavailability analysis for missing witness)
- United States v. Ochoa-Zarate, 540 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2008) (limits of harmless error in improper admission)
- United States v. Lewis, 641 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (entrapment and predisposition standards)