24-1311
1st Cir.Mar 17, 2026Background
- Figueroa was convicted after a jury trial of one count of money laundering conspiracy based on six large cash transfers totaling roughly $500,000. 1
- The government’s theory was that the transfers were drug proceeds moved through Magana’s laundering network for Mexican drug traffickers. 2
- At trial, the government presented surveillance, recorded calls, WhatsApp messages, and cash seizures tying Figueroa to the transfers and to narcotics trafficking. 3
- Figueroa challenged testimony from Magana about a cartel kidnapping and from agents O'Shaughnessy, Hernandez, and George as overview or ultimate-issue testimony. 4
- The district court overruled some objections, gave a curative instruction on guilt by association, and the jury convicted Figueroa. 5
- On appeal, Figueroa argued the evidentiary errors were prejudicial individually and cumulatively. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magana kidnapping testimony admissibility 7 | Figueroa said it was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. | Government said it explained Magana's cartel involvement and the laundering scheme. | Any error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence. 8 |
| O'Shaughnessy overview/ultimate-issue testimony 9 | Figueroa said the agent improperly previewed and opined on the case. | Government said any mistakes were cured or harmless. | Any error was harmless, and some claims were waived. 10 |
| Hernandez's repeated use of 'drug proceeds' 11 | Figueroa said Hernandez impermissibly opined on the ultimate issue. | Government said the label was harmless in light of the evidence. | Any error was harmless. 12 |
| George's testimony on money laundering 13 | Figueroa said George improperly reached the ultimate issue. | Government said the argument was undeveloped and waived. | The issue was waived; no reversal. 14 |
| Cumulative error 15 | Figueroa said the combined errors required reversal. | Government said the evidence still overwhelmingly proved guilt. | No cumulative prejudice; conviction affirmed. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. García-Sierra, 994 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2021) (abuse of discretion and plain error standards for evidentiary review 17)
- United States v. Villa-Guillen, 102 F.4th 508 (1st Cir. 2024) (harmless evidentiary error does not require reversal if the judgment was not substantially swayed 18)
- United States v. Burgos-Montes, 786 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2015) (harmless-error formulation 19)
- United States v. Feliciano-Candelario, 128 F.4th 5 (1st Cir. 2025) (plain error standard requirements 20)
- United States v. Etienne, 772 F.3d 907 (1st Cir. 2014) (defines problematic overview testimony by government agents 21)
- United States v. Kuljko, 1 F.4th 87 (1st Cir. 2021) (swift and strong curative instruction may render evidence harmless 22)
- United States v. Flores-de-Jesus, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (overwhelming evidence can make evidentiary error highly unlikely to affect verdict 23)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (perfunctory arguments are waived 24)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Adorno, 695 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (harmless-error analysis considers the whole record 25)
- United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (cumulative-error doctrine applies only when errors synergistically prejudice the verdict 26)
- United States v. Rosario-Pérez, 957 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2020) (holistic cumulative-error prejudice inquiry 27)
- United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019) (evidence error may be harmless where other proof is strong 28)