United States v. Maymi-Maysonet , 812 F.3d 233 ( 2016 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-2183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
CARLOS JAVIER MAYMÍ-MAYSONET,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Hawkins,* and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Raymond Rivera-Esteves, for appellant.
Mainon A. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Francisco A. Besosa-Martínez, Assistant United States
Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.
February 5, 2016
*
Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
HAWKINS, Circuit Judge. Following a jury trial,
defendant Carlos Javier Maymí-Maysonet ("Maymí") appeals his
convictions for conspiring to possess and aiding and abetting to
possess with intent to distribute five kilos or more of cocaine.
Maymí contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
conviction. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In July 2012, Homeland Security agents were conducting an
undercover sting operation at the Hampton Inn & Suites in Isla
Verde, Carolina, Puerto Rico. Posing as sellers, they planned a
sham drug transaction for five kilos of cocaine at $19,000/kilo.
Agents were stationed outside the hotel conducting surveillance and
inside a hotel room posing as drug traffickers. The primary target
of the investigation was co-defendant Tirson Rodríguez-Belliard
("Rodríguez"). To arrange the transaction, the agents were using
the cooperation of a confidential informant ("CI"), who did not
testify at trial.
Around noon, an agent observed Rodríguez and a companion,
later identified as co-defendant García-Calderón ("García") arrive,
park on a service road, and walk towards the nearby Lupi's
Restaurant. Around 1:11 p.m., the agent saw Rodríguez and García
returning from the restaurant, now accompanied by defendant Maymí.
The three went to the area where Rodríguez had parked and stationed
themselves against a fence.
-2-
Shortly thereafter, around 1:37 p.m., the trio were
joined by the CI. The men spoke for about three minutes, and then
the CI left and walked towards the hotel. At 1:59 p.m., the three
defendants walked towards the Hampton Inn; Rodríguez and García
positioned themselves near the driveway entrance, while Maymí
headed towards a nearby cockfighting ring. Two minutes later, a
red Suzuki vehicle exited the cockfighting ring parking lot and
drove past the Hampton Inn; the agent could not see who was driving
or how many passengers were in the vehicle.
The red Suzuki returned seventeen minutes later (at 2:18
p.m.) and drove into the Hampton Inn parking lot through its
driveway entrance and parked. Rodríguez and García had remained
stationed by the hotel driveway while the vehicle was gone. Upon
its return, they followed it into the hotel parking lot and out of
the view of the agent. Two minutes later (2:20 p.m.), the agents
inside the hotel received the call indicating the money for the
drugs had arrived. At 2:26, Rodríguez and García met the CI in
front of the hotel lobby and were joined by the agents inside the
hotel. Rodríguez was now carrying a black bag.
García asked the agents if they would go upstairs, count
the money, and send the narcotics down for somebody else to take it
away ("bring down the work so that the guys can leave . . . .").
Rodríguez, the CI, and one of the agents went upstairs while García
and the other agent remained in the hotel lobby. The agent asked
-3-
García if he had eaten, and García replied that he and his
companions had eaten.
Rodríguez was arrested upstairs in the hotel room.
Agents seized the black bag, which contained $92,500. Rodríguez
also had $10,000 in his pocket. At approximately the same time,
García was arrested. Three individuals were also arrested in the
red Suzuki -- the driver, another passenger, and Maymí. At the
time of his arrest, immediately after exiting the back seat of the
vehicle, Maymí was found to have $10,500 in cash on his person.1
The U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute the
driver and other passenger in the Suzuki, but did bring indictments
against Maymí, García, and Rodríguez. The government also decided
not to use the CI as a witness. García and Rodríguez pled guilty
prior to trial. After Maymí's two-day trial, the jury returned a
verdict of guilty on both counts. Maymí moved for a judgment of
acquittal, which the court denied. Maymí was sentenced to 240
months in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review "preserved challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence de novo." United States v. Peña, 586 F.3d 105, 111 (1st
Cir. 2009). We must view "the evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
1
The parties stipulated at trial that this money was returned to
Maymí.
-4-
decide whether that evidence, including all plausible inferences
drawn therefrom, would allow a rational factfinder to conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged
crime." United States v. Cruz-Rodríguez, 541 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir.
2008).
DISCUSSION
Maymí contends that the government failed to present
sufficient evidence that he knowingly joined a conspiracy or
knowingly aided and abetted Rodríguez and García in committing a
crime. While there is no direct evidence of Maymí's knowledge in
this case, reliance on indirect evidence is "both permissible and
commonplace," United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 234 (1st Cir.
1995); circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it may
be sufficient to sustain a conviction. United States v. Louder, 23
F.3d 586, 589-90 (1st Cir. 1994). The evidence need not exclude
"every possible hypothesis of innocence" to support the
convictions. See United States v. Quejada-Zurique, 708 F.2d 857,
861 (1st Cir. 1983). However, "if the evidence viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict gives equal or nearly equal
circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of
innocence of the crime charged, this court must reverse the
conviction." United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319, 323 (1st
Cir. 1995). Nonetheless, the "evidence in a criminal case should
be viewed in its totality, for evidence -- particularly
-5-
circumstantial evidence -- often has an exponential effect."
United States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703, 707 (1st Cir. 1994)
(citation omitted).
Maymí argues that his presence at the scene of the
meeting between the co-defendants and the CI cannot demonstrate his
willing participation in the illegal activities. The jury here was
properly instructed that mere presence at the scene of a crime is
not enough, but that the requisite intent may be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances. See id. at 859. In addition, "[j]urors
can be assumed to know that criminals rarely welcome innocent
persons as witnesses to serious crimes and rarely seek to
perpetrate felonies before larger-than-necessary audiences."
United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 712 (1st Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, Maymí was not only present at the meeting
with the CI, he was also found in the backseat of the red Suzuki in
the hotel parking lot with a substantial amount of cash on his
person. The car departed the parking lot two minutes after Maymí
returned from the conversation by the fence with the co-defendants,
and returned to the hotel two minutes before the co-defendants
notified the agents they had the money for the deal. The
co-defendants waited at the entrance of the hotel parking lot,
watched the vehicle leave, and walked in its direction when it
returned. And, minutes after the vehicle returned, Rodríguez was
spotted in the parking lot with a black bag in his hands -- the
-6-
same black bag that would be found to contain the money to be used
to purchase the drugs. This timing supports an inference that the
car left to pick up the money for the transaction. "When a
plausible read of the record supports the verdict, we will not
overturn the jury's determination on appeal." United States v.
Morales-de Jesús, 372 F.3d 6, 21 (1st Cir. 2004).2
If each piece of the puzzle were viewed individually,
then Maymí would have a better argument. But taken altogether, the
indirect evidence pushes these "mere coincidences" over the edge.
See O'Brien, 14 F.3d at 707 ("A beehive near a country lane tells
a stranger very little about the use to which the property is
devoted. Yet, if there are eighty or ninety beehives in a shed,
who would doubt that he had stumbled upon an apiary?"). Jurors
"are neither required to divorce themselves from their common sense
nor abandon the dictates of mature experiences." United States v.
Hernández, 995 F.2d 307, 314 (1st Cir. 1993). Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, we
cannot say that the evidence "gives equal or nearly equal
2
We also note that we are called upon to consider "the record
evidence (and any reasonable inferences therefrom) as a whole
. . ." to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain
the verdict. United States v. Downs-Moses, 329 F.3d 253, 261 (1st
Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). Thus, we will not engage in
speculation about what stronger evidence the government could have
presented in its case-in-chief. We ask only whether the evidence
it did present, viewed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, would have permitted a rational jury to find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The civil cases
cited by the dissent in footnote 1 do not alter our task.
-7-
circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of
innocence," Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d at 323. Here, there are too
many proximate connections between Maymí's actions and those of the
drug traffickers. And so the jury could reasonably infer Maymí's
knowing participation in or aiding and abetting the conspiracy from
the sequence of events.
AFFIRMED.
-Dissenting Opinion Follows-
-8-
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. There is no doubt
that reliance on circumstantial evidence to support a conviction is
permissible. United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 234 (1st Cir.
1995). A factfinder may certainly draw reasonable inferences based
on the evidence. See United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 589-90
(1st Cir. 1994). "[T]he cumulative probability of guilt created by
all the evidence, rather than the probability of guilt created by
a single piece of evidence, . . . is the touchstone in deciding
whether a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt." United States v. Burgos, 703 F.3d 1, 15 (1st
Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Williams, 698 F.3d 374, 379
(7th Cir. 2012)). And, of course, a jury verdict that represents
a "plausible rendition of the record" must be allowed to stand.
United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992).
But "to sustain a conviction for conspiracy . . . the
evidence must show that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the defendant
had knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant knowingly
and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy." United States v.
Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109, 116 (1st Cir. 2011). "With respect to
the second element, the Government must establish that the
defendant had knowledge of the crime charged." Burgos, 703 F.3d at
10 (citing United States v. Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d 31, 43 (1st
Cir. 2010)). Specifically, where a defendant is charged with
conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to
-9-
distribute, "[s]howing that the defendant had knowledge of
generalized illegality is insufficient; the Government must show
that the defendant knew the conspiracy involved a controlled
substance . . ." Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)
(citing Pérez–Meléndez, 599 F.3d at 41). To satisfy the third
requirement, the Government had to show "that the defendant both
intended to join the conspiracy and intended to effectuate the
objects of the conspiracy." Dellosantos, 649 F.3d at 116 (citing
United States v. Portalla, 496 F.3d 23, 26 (2007)). To satisfy the
third prong, "[a] defendant 'must in some sense promote [the
conspiracy] himself, make it his own, have a stake in its
outcome.'" Burgos, 703 F.3d at 11 (quoting United States v.
Aponte-Suárez, 905 F.2d 483, 491 (1st Cir. 1990)).
"[T]o establish aiding and abetting liability, the
[G]overnment [had to] prove, first, that the principal committed
the substantive offense charged, and second, that the accomplice
'became associated with [the principal's criminal] endeavor and
took part in it, intending to assure its success.'" United States
v. González, 570 F.3d 16, 28-29 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting United
States v. Matos-Quiñones, 456 F.3d 14, 20 n.5 (1st Cir. 2006)). In
the context of aiding and abetting, "knowledge that one is guilty
of some crime is not the same as knowledge that one is guilty of
the crime charged." Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d at 43 (quoting United
States v. Nieves-Castaño, 480 F.3d 597, 601 (1st Cir. 2007)
-10-
(emphasis in original)). As we have elsewhere observed, "[m]ere
presence at the scene or even knowledge that the crime is being
committed is generally insufficient to establish aiding and
abetting." United States v. Quejada-Zurique, 708 F.2d 857, 859
(1st Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Tarr, 589 F.2d 55, 59 (1st
Cir. 1978); see also United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332, 342
(1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Steuben, 850 F.2d 859, 864 (1st
Cir. 1988).
This Court's precedent compels me to conclude that the
evidence in this case was not sufficient to give the jury a basis
for finding Maymí guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, United States
v. Cruz-Rodríguez, 541 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2008), of either
conspiracy or aiding and abetting. With respect to conspiracy, the
Government failed to prove the essential second and third prongs of
that charge, that Maymí knew of the conspiracy -- specifically,
that he knew that the conspiracy involved a controlled substance --
and voluntarily participated in it. See Dellosantos, 649 F.3d at
116. That evidentiary gap likewise precluded satisfaction of the
second prong of aiding and abetting. González, 570 F.3d at 28-29.
The Government, and majority, believe that Maymí's
presence during the conversation with the CI, the content of which
was not known to the jury, along with other circumstantial
evidence, was sufficient to indicate his knowledge of the drug
deal. I think it is clear that it was not. Had evidence been
-11-
produced that the conversation Rodríguez, García, Maymí, and the CI
held by the fence involved planning a drug transaction, the
Government's burden of proof likely would have been satisfied, and
handily. However, the Government failed to have the CI testify and
did not timely submit the recording of that conversation.3
Although the majority emphasizes that the jury was
instructed that "mere presence at the scene of a crime is not
enough," supra at 7, it misses the obvious: Maymí was not present
for the crime or at the crime scene. Unlike the defendant in
Ortiz, for example, who was silently present during a drug deal,
3
The majority notes that the CI did not testify at trial. Supra
at 2. I would add that the record reflects that the Government
submitted an informative motion regarding the CI, United States'
Informative Motion, United States v. Maymí-Maisonet, No. 3:12-cr-
00623-GAG-SCC (D.P.R. Sept. 25, 2013), ECF No. 91, which suggests
the Government originally intended that he testify. Maymí's brief
noted that "[t]he case initially included a witness identified
herein as the CI. Discovery relating to the trustworthiness of the
CI was provided to the defense and the district court was informed
by the Government before trial that the said witness would not be
used." The Government also had but was not able to use in its case
in chief "a recording wherein the defendant is heard conversing
with the CI and with the two other defendants discussing the money
issue -- the bringing of the money for the purchase of the cocaine"
as doing so, counsel conceded to the court, would be "unduly
prejudicial" due to late notice to defense counsel. That the
Government did not call the CI to testify gives rise to a negative
inference as to the favorability of that testimony. Cf. Layne v.
Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1981). And, needless to say,
the fact that the Government had a recording of a conversation
regarding the money allegedly used in the charged transaction, but
was unable to use by reason of the Government's own inaction,
cannot only not be used as evidence of knowledge of the criminal
enterprise but raises a presumption that the "evidence" not used
was not favorable to the Government. Cf. Commercial Ins. Co., of
Newark, N.J. v. González, 512 F.2d 1307, 1314 (1st Cir. 1975).
-12-
Maymí was present during a conversation among people who later
conducted a drug deal. 966 F.2d at 713. Maymí was never at the
scene of the crime, the hotel room. He was in the backseat of the
Suzuki outside, which one may glean was not a crime scene, nor
connected to the crime, as its two other occupants were released.
Nor did the cash found on Maymí show knowledge of or
participation in the drug crime. The Government did not argue that
the $10,500 found on Maymí -- which was, as the majority notes,
returned to Maymí, supra at 5, n.1, a strong indication that law
enforcement could not connect the cash to the crime -- was used to
facilitate the drug deal. In fact, in its opening argument, the
Government provided that the $102,500 found with Rodríguez was the
payment for the "cocaine," making no mention of the $10,500.4 In
closing, the Government -- even as it conceded that Maymí's cash
was returned -- argued only that the $10,500 was significant
because "not everyone is going to carry more than $10,000 in cash
in their pockets just to walk around."
García's statements about how his company had already
eaten and "the guys" were in the car, also fail to support even the
4
I note at this juncture, as a general matter, that I view with
increasing skepticism the practice of creating artificial criminal
situations to arrest and prosecute individuals for real crimes.
See, e.g., United States v. Kindle, 698 F.3d 401, 412-16 (7th Cir.
2012) (Posner, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part),
rev'd en banc sub nom. United States v. Mayfield, 771 F.3d 417 (7th
Cir. 2014); United States v. Hudson, 3 F. Supp. 3d 772 (C.D. Cal.),
rev'd sub nom. United States v. Dunlap, 593 F. App'x 619 (9th Cir.
2014).
-13-
inference that Maymí knew of the drug deal. Here, no direct
evidence indicated García was referring to the Suzuki; established
that "the guys" included Maymí, as the car had two other occupants;
or tied the red Suzuki to the drug crime. The release of the
Suzuki's other occupants and return of Maymí's $10,500 suggest a
lack of involvement.
The circumstantial evidence presented, and the reasonable
inferences that could have been drawn from it, simply did not
suffice to allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Maymí knew of the conspiracy to possess and distribute a controlled
substance or that he knowingly aided and abetted that crime. See
Spinney, 65 F.3d at 234. From the circumstantial evidence, the
jury may have inferred that (1) Maymí went to get, or get in, the
Suzuki; left in the car; and returned to the Hampton Inn because of
the conversation with Rodríguez, García, and the CI; (2) Rodríguez
retrieved the black bag later found to contain the cash from the
Suzuki; and (3) García's statement to Ramos about "the guys"
referred to the driver and at least one other occupant of the
Suzuki, implicating them as people waiting to receive the "work"
and leave with it -- and no more. See Loder, 23 F.3d at 589-90.
As in Loder, where this Court held that knowledge of a
mail fraud scheme could not be imputed when no evidence was
introduced that information concerning the scheme was ever
communicated to the defendant, here there is no basis for finding
-14-
that information about the charged crime was communicated to Maymí.
23 F.3d at 592. There is notably less basis for making such an
inference here than there was in Burgos, in which this Court held
that even a phone conversation recorded via wiretap in which a
police officer defendant informed a drug distributor of
surveillance and warned, "let's take it easy for now," along with
an unrecorded five-to-ten minute conversation between the two men
on the street, 703 F.3d at 6, and evidence of their acquaintance,
could only support an inference of knowledge of general illegal
activity. Id. at 13-15.
The majority relies on the principle that a jury verdict
that represents a "plausible rendition of the record," including
inferences, must be allowed to stand. Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 711; see
also United States v. Morales-de Jesús, 372 9 F.3d 6, 21 (1st Cir.
2004). It has neglected the corollary that inferences that are
"certainly plausible" may still have limited significance. See
Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d at 43-44; Burgos, 703 F.3d at 17.
Suggestive though they may be, none of the available inferences
here establish that Maymí knew of the drug crime specifically or
knowingly participated in its commission. Only by "stack[ing]
inference upon inference" of limited significance in contravention
of our precedent has the majority determined that the jury could
have found Maymí's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Burgos, 703
F.3d at 9 (citing United States v. Valerio, 48 F.3d 58, 64 (1st
-15-
Cir. 1995)). Without stacking inferences, this Court is left with,
at the very most, evidence that suggests knowledge of "generalized
illegality," which Burgos held insufficient to sustain a conviction
for conspiracy, 703 F.3d at 10, 16, and Pérez-Meléndez determined
insufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting. 599
F.3d at 46-47.
I thus respectfully dissent from the judgment.
-16-