United States v. Castro-Caicedo, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Castro-Caicedo, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1046

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

GUSTAVO CASTRO- CAI CEDO,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mar k L. Wol f , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

Chauncey B. Wood, wi t h whom Wood & Nat hanson, LLP was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Randal l E. Kr omm, Assi st ant Uni t ed St ates At t orney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J ames L. Br ochi n, J enni f er H. Wu, Mar ques S. Tr acy, Laur a E.Sedl ak, Paul , Wei ss, Ri f ki nd, Whar t on & Gar r i son LLP, and Bar r y C.

Scheck, Kar en A. Newi r t h, I nnocence Pr oj ect , I nc. , on br i ef f orI nnocence Pr oj ect , I nc. , ami cus cur i ae i n suppor t of appel l ant .

December 24, 2014


2/22

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Gust avo Cast r o- Cai cedo appeal s

hi s convi ct i on and sent ence f or par t i ci pat i ng i n a conspi r acy t hat

sought t o send cocai ne f r om Col ombi a t o t he Uni t ed St ates. Hi s

pr i mar y obj ect i on i s t hat f eder al agent s used a hi ghl y suggest i ve

means t o pr ompt a member of t he conspi r acy t o i dent i f y hi m as a

conf eder at e, and t hus t hat t he gover nment ' s use of t he

i dent i f i cat i on at t r i al vi ol at ed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o due

pr ocess. Cast r o- Cai cedo al so chal l enges t he admi ssi on of ot her

t est i mony under t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. And, f i nal l y, he

argues t hat hi s sent ence was unr easonabl y l engt hy. But al t hough t he

r ecor d shows t he Di st r i ct Cour t was j ust i f i ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t he

means used t o obt ai n t he i dent i f i cat i on wer e pr obl emat i c, we f i nd

t he r ecor d al so suppor t s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s wel l - consi der ed

j udgment t hat t here was r eason enough t o cr edi t t he i dent i f i cat i on

t o per mi t a j ur y t o deci de i t s wor t h. Because we see no mer i t i n

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s r emai ni ng chal l enges - - each of whi ch he rai ses f or

t he f i r st t i me on appeal - - we af f i r m bot h t he convi ct i on and t he

sent ence.

I.

Fol l owi ng an i nvest i gat i on by a Dr ug Enf orcement

Admi ni st r at i on ( DEA) t ask f orce and cooper at i ng el ement s of

Col ombi an l aw enf orcement agenci es, Cast r o- Cai cedo, a Col ombi an

nat i onal , was i ndi ct ed i n Massachuset t s on one count of

par t i ci pat i ng i n a conspi r acy t o i mpor t cocai ne t o t he Uni t ed

-2-


3/22

St at es, or t o manuf act ur e and di st r i but e cocai ne f or i mpor t at i on t o

t he Uni t ed St at es. 21 U. S. C. 952( a) , 959( a) , 960( b) ( 1) ( B) . At

t r i al , t he conspi r acy' s l eader t est i f i ed t hat t he conspi r acy

i nvol ved, i n par t , t r anspor t i ng t ens of ki l ogr ams of cocai ne f r om

Cal i , a ci t y i n Col ombi a, t o t he Col ombi an por t ci t y of

Buenavent ur a, f r om wher e i t woul d be sent by shi p t o t he Bahamas.

The gover nment al so put f or t h evi dence t o show Cast r o- Cai cedo hel ped

organi ze some of t hose shi pment s out of Buenavent ur a f r omat l east

2007 t o 2009.

To prove t he f ur t her al l egat i on t hat t he conspi r acy

sought t o ensur e the cocai ne woul d r each t hi s count r y, t he

gover nment pr esent ed a var i et y of evi dence, both di r ect and

ci r cumst ant i al . Cast r o- Cai cedo' s chal l enge t o hi s convi ct i on t akes

ai m at onl y cer t ai n por t i ons of t hi s evi dence, and we t ai l or our

r eci t at i on of t he f act s accor di ngl y.

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s l ead chal l enge i s t o one pi ece of di r ect

evi dence: t he t est i mony of an i nf or mant we wi l l cal l "J . D. " 1 J . D.

used t o be a seaman on a cont ai ner shi p based out of Fr eepor t ,

Bahamas t hat of t en cal l ed at Buenavent ur a, Col ombi a. Feder al agent s

f i r st spoke wi t h J . D. about hi s par t i ci pat i on i n a cocai ne smuggl i ng

oper at i on i n 2009. I n 2012, a l i t t l e mor e t han a mont h bef or e

1 We assi gn t hese i ni t i al s t o i dent i f y t he i nf or mant "i nl i ght of concer ns about t he saf et y of cooper at i ng wi t nesses r ai sedby t he Commi t t ee on Cour t Admi ni st r at i on and Case Management of t heJ udi ci al Conf er ence of t he Uni t ed St at es. " Uni t ed St at es v.Et i enne, ___ F. 3d ___, 2014 WL 5462541, at *1 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-3-


4/22

t r i al , J . D. f i r st t ol d t he agent s t hat mor e t han f our year s bef or e

he met t wi ce wi t h a person known t o hi m t hen onl y as t he owner of

a home i n t he ci t y of Buenavent ur a. J . D. t ol d t he agent s t hat ,

t hrough t hose t wo meet i ngs, he and t he owner of t hat house r eached

an agr eement t o shi p cer t ai n quant i t i es of cocai ne t o t he Uni t ed

St at es.

Feder al agent s t hen showed J . D. el even photogr aphs, t hr ee

of whi ch depi ct ed ot her member s of t he conspi r acy and t he l ast of

whi ch was an i mage of Cast r o- Cai cedo. Upon seei ng t hat pi ct ur e,

J . D. i dent i f i ed i t as depi ct i ng t he owner of t he house and t hus t he

person wi t h whom he had st r uck t he deal .

Cast r o- Cai cedo moved t o suppr ess t he i dent i f i cat i on pr i or

t o t r i al . He ar gued t he pr esent at i on of t he phot ogr aphs

i mper mi ssi bl y cued J . D. t o pi ck out Cast r o- Cai cedo' s pi ct ur e. And

he f ur t her argued t hat , by t hen, t oo much t i me had passed si nce

J . D. ' s l ast encount er wi t h t he person he pur por t ed t o i dent i f y f or

t he i dent i f i cat i on t o be r el i abl e enough t o over come t he t ai nt of

t hat i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve di spl ay of phot ogr aphs. He t hus

ar gued t he use of t he i dent i f i cat i on at t r i al woul d vi ol at e hi s

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o due pr ocess.

The Di st r i ct Cour t di sagreed. I t f ound t he phot ographs

had been assembl ed i n a manner t hat was undul y suggest i ve. But t he

Di str i ct Cour t al so f ound t he i dent i f i cat i on was st i l l r el i abl e

enough t o put t o t he j ur y.

-4-


5/22

Cast r o- Cai cedo di d not r ai se hi s ot her evi dent i ar y

chal l enges at t r i al . He t hus pr esses t hem f or t he f i r st t i me on

appeal .

The f i r st of t hese unpr eser ved obj ect i ons concer ns

t est i mony about t wo l arge sei zures of cocai ne shi pment s i n Col ombi a

i n 2008, one of 875 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and the ot her of 500

ki l ogr ams. The gover nment i nt r oduced t he t est i mony t o support i t s

cont ent i on t her e was a cocai ne conspi r acy t o j oi n, t hat coded

conver sat i ons bet ween conspi r at or s ( i ncl udi ng Cast r o- Cai cedo)

r ef er r ed t o cocai ne t r af f i cki ng, and t hat t he conspi r acy was of such

scope t hat i t must have ai med to send cocai ne t o t he Uni t ed St ates.

Cast r o- Cai cedo cont ends he had no di r ect t i e t o ei t her

shi pment , and t he government concedes t he poi nt . Cast r o- Cai cedo

t hus argues t hat , under t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, t he t est i mony

was ei t her i r r el evant or undul y pr ej udi ci al and t hat hi s convi ct i on

shoul d be r eversed i n consequence.

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s ot her unpr eser ved evi dent i ar y obj ect i on

concer ns a Col ombi an pol i ce of f i cer ' s t est i mony about a pol ygr aph

t est he t ook upon j oi ni ng t he DEA t ask f or ce. I n addi t i on t o

t est i f yi ng about a r ecor ded cal l ment i oni ng t he 500- ki l ogr amsei zur e

di scussed above, t hi s of f i cer al so t est i f i ed about a number of ot her

r ecor ded cal l s i nvol vi ng Cast r o- Cai cedo and ot her s who pl ed gui l t y

t o i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy. Cast r o- Cai cedo cont ends t he

of f i cer ' s t est i mony about t he pol ygr aph l ed j ur or s t o gi ve undue

-5-


6/22

wei ght t o hi s credi bi l i t y. Cast r o- Cai cedo t hus ar gues t he admi ssi on

of t hi s pol ygr aph t est i mony vi ol at ed t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence

and r equi r es r ever sal of t he convi ct i on.

Fi nal l y, Cast r o- Cai cedo chal l enges hi s sent ence. Her e,

t oo, he pr esses an argument he makes f or t he f i r st t i me t o us.

Cast r o- Cai cedo cont ends t he 300- mont h pr i son sent ence he r ecei ved

i s unr easonabl e. He ar gues t he Di st r i ct Cour t unj ust i f i abl y var i ed

upward f r omt he sent ence suggest ed by t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes and,

i n doi ng so, i mposed a sent ence t hat f ar sur passes t he l engt h of t he

sent ences gi ven t o ot her member s of t he conspi r acy, i ncl udi ng i t s

pur por t ed l eader .

We use t hi s same or der of pr esent at i on t o addr ess t he

mer i t s of each chal l enge.

II.

J . D. ' s i dent i f i cat i on pur por t ed t o of f er di r ect evi dence

t hat Cast r o- Cai cedo par t i ci pat ed i n t he cocai ne conspi r acy and t hat

t he conspi r acy i nt ended t o send cocai ne t o the Uni t ed St at es - -

evi dence, i n ot her wor ds, t hat di r ect l y suppor t ed t he conspi r acy

char ge set f or t h i n t he i ndi ct ment . Typi cal l y, j ur i es wei gh t he

r el i abi l i t y of evi dence, i ncl udi ng eyewi t ness i dent i f i cat i ons. But

when t he government uses hi ghl y suggest i ve means t o el i ci t an

eyewi t ness i dent i f i cat i on, t her e may be r eason t o depar t f r om t hat

nor m.

-6-


7/22

I n such a case, t her e i s a real concer n t he

i dent i f i cat i on wi l l be mi staken, or at l east wi l l r esul t f r om t he

suggest i ve means t he gover nment used t o pr ompt t he wi t ness r at her

t han f r om t he wi t ness' s memory of havi ng encount er ed t he per son

i dent i f i ed. And t he Supr eme Cour t has made cl ear t hat ver y concer n

may ar i se i f "t he pol i ce di spl ay to t he wi t ness onl y the pi ct ur e of

a si ngl e i ndi vi dual who gener al l y r esembl es t he per son he saw, or

i f t hey show hi m t he pi ct ur es of sever al per sons among whi ch t he

photogr aph of a si ngl e such i ndi vi dual r ecur s or i s i n some way

emphasi zed. " Si mmons v. Uni t ed St at es, 390 U. S. 377, 383 ( 1968) .

Because, i n such ci r cumst ance, t he government ' s own

choi ce t o use a suggest i ve pr ompt cast s doubt on t he

i dent i f i cat i on' s r el i abi l i t y, t he Const i t ut i on may bar t he

gover nment f r om benef i t t i ng f r om t he pr obl emat i c means used to

el i ci t t hat i nf or mat i on. Per r y v. New Hampshi r e, 132 S. Ct . 716,

726 ( 2012) . Thus, upon a def endant ' s showi ng t he gover nment used

undul y suggest i ve means t o obt ai n an eyewi t ness i dent i f i cat i on, t he

government must show why the i dent i f i cat i on shoul d be put t o t he

j ury despi t e i t s t ai nt ed or i gi ns. Nei l v. Bi gger s, 409 U. S. 188,

199 ( 1972) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 689 F. 3d 12, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

I n assessi ng a di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on such quest i ons,

we r evi ew t he f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or and t he concl usi ons

of l aw de novo, al l owi ng f or some "r easonabl e l at i t ude f or

case- speci f i c deci si ons" appl yi ng l aw t o f act . J ones, 689 F. 3d at

-7-


8/22

18. Appl yi ng t hat st andar d, we concl ude t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not

er r i n f i ndi ng t hat , al t hough t he gover nment pr esent ed t he

phot ogr aphs i n an undul y suggest i ve way, t he gover nment had met i t s

bur den of showi ng t he j ur y shoul d st i l l be al l owed t o consi der

J . D. ' s i dent i f i cat i on.

A.

We st ar t wi t h what t he recor d shows about what l ed t he

f eder al agent s t o show J . D. t he phot ogr aphs i n t he f i r st pl ace. I n

Apr i l of 2009, f eder al agent s convi nced J . D. t o become a

conf i dent i al i nf or mant . I n t hat r ol e, J . D. t ol d t he agent s about

cocai ne shi pment s f r om Col ombi a t o t he Bahamas.

An agent t est i f i ed t hat J . D. di d not at t hat t i me

speci f i cal l y ment i on havi ng met wi t h an owner of a house i n

Buenavent ur a, t hat such a per son was i nvol ved i n t hose cocai ne

shi pment s, or t hat t hi s per son r eached an agr eement wi t h J . D. t o

send cocai ne t o t he Uni t ed St at es. But dur i ng a f ol l ow- up meet i ng

wi t h a f eder al pr osecut or and i nvest i gat or i n August 2012, t he

agent s t est i f i ed, J . D. di d f or t he f i r st t i me speci f i cal l y ment i on

meet i ng such a per son, t hat per son' s i nvol vement wi t h t he shi pment s,

and t he deal t hey reached.

And whi l e J . D. di d not at t hat t i me pr ovi de t he name of

t hi s per son, he di d of f er a descr i pt i on of hi m. Test i mony showed

J . D. descr i bed hi mas bei ng between f i ve f eet ei ght i nches and f i ve

f eet t en i nches t al l , about f i f t y year s ol d, and havi ng a dar k

-8-


9/22

compl exi on, a "saggi ng . . . bel l y, " a l i mp, and l i mi t ed Engl i sh

f aci l i t y.

The prosecut or and i nvest i gat or t hen, i mprompt u, showed

J . D. a number of phot ographs on t he prosecut or ' s l apt op. J . D.

t est i f i ed he i ni t i al l y t ol d t he pr osecut or and i nvest i gat or he woul d

not be abl e t o i dent i f y t he per son wi t h whom he had met . The

i nvest i gat or , by cont r ast , t est i f i ed J . D. sai d he mi ght be abl e t o

r ecogni ze some i ndi vi dual s f r om t he conspi r acy.

The i nvest i gat or pref aced t he pr esent at i on of t he

phot ogr aphs by tel l i ng J . D. he mi ght not r ecogni ze anyone i n t he

phot ogr aphs, he need not i dent i f y any speci f i c phot ogr aph or per son,

and he shoul d i dent i f y someone appear i ng i n one of t he phot ogr aphs

onl y i f he was cer t ai n he knew who was depi ct ed. J . D. saw each

phot ogr aph sequent i al l y, and he di d not know at t he out set how many

he woul d see by t he end.

The prosecut or and i nvest i gat or ul t i mat el y showed J . D.

el even phot ogr aphs. The set i ncl uded a pi ct ur e of Cast r o- Cai cedo

at t he end, pr eceded by ten photos of other men, i ncl udi ng t hr ee

member s of t he conspi r acy.

The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hi s presentat i on concer ni ng,

expl ai ni ng t hat i t was not "of a convent i onal sor t " and t hat "[ i ] t

wasn' t assembl ed to meet t he st andards of a t ypi cal phot o ar r ay. "

The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound especi al l y t r oubl i ng t hat t here wer e "not

a number of peopl e of Mr . Cast r o- Cai cedo' s age or appear ance" and

-9-


10/22

t hat "4 of t he 11 are peopl e who have been charged i n thi s case and

t hr ee of whomhave pl ed gui l t y. " And i t r ul ed, i n t he end, t hat t he

di spl ay was " i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve. "

Whet her or not t he i ncl usi on of t he conspi r at or s was

i t sel f pr obl emat i c, cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l ar i o- Hi l ar i o, 529 F. 3d

65, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( assumi ng but not deci di ng t hat a phot o

l i neup t hat gr ouped conspi r at or s t oget her was undul y suggest i ve) ,

t he r ecor d suppor t s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t her e wer e

not "a number of peopl e of Mr . Cast r o- Cai cedo' s age or appearance. "

The phot ograph of Cast r o- Cai cedo appears t o depi ct a person f ar

ol der and wi t h dar ker ski n t han any ot her per son i n t he set . He i s

al so t he onl y per son i n t he set whose saggi ng bel l y i s shown.

Mor eover , Cast r o- Cai cedo i s depi ct ed i n a st r i ki ng yel l ow and bl ue

st r i ped shi r t whi l e the ot her s wore more mut ed garb.

The assembl y of phot ographs t hus r ai ses t he concer n t hat

i t s desi gn cued J . D. t o pi ck out t hat phot ogr aph i n par t i cul ar . See

Uni t ed St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d 36, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( not i ng

t hat undue suggest i on depends on "whether t he phot o ar r ay i ncl uded,

as f ar as was pract i cabl e, a reasonabl e number of per sons si mi l ar

i n appear ance t o t he suspect " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lau, 828 F. 2d 871,

876 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( char act er i zi ng Si mmons, 390 U. S. at 383- 84, as

hol di ng t hat "pol i ce shoul d avoi d emphasi zi ng pi ct ur e of suspect i n

phot ogr aphi c i dent i f i cat i on") . And t hus t he Di st r i ct Cour t was

j ust i f i ed i n f i ndi ng t he phot ographs had been shown t o J . D. i n a

-10-


11/22

manner so suggest i ve i t gave r i se t o t he r i sk of an unr el i abl e

i dent i f i cat i on. See Si mmons, 390 U. S. at 383 ( The danger of an

i ncor r ect i dent i f i cat i on "wi l l be i ncr eased i f t he pol i ce di spl ay

t o t he wi t ness onl y the pi ct ur e of a si ngl e i ndi vi dual who gener al l y

r esembl es t he per son he saw, or i f t hey show hi m t he pi ct ur es of

sever al persons among whi ch t he phot ogr aph of a si ngl e such

i ndi vi dual r ecur s or i s i n some way emphasi zed. " ) .

B.

Nonet hel ess, t he Di st r i ct Cour t went on t o r ul e t he

i dent i f i cat i on was suf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o per mi t a j ur y t o

consi der i t . And because t he r ecor d suppor t s t hat j udgment , t oo,

we decl i ne t o di st ur b i t .

The Di st r i ct Cour t r eached t hi s concl usi on af t er

consi der i ng t he f i ve f act or s t hat much pr ecedent makes r el evant t o

an over al l det er mi nat i on about t he r el i abi l i t y of an i dent i f i cat i on

t hat has been prompted by undul y suggest i ve means. Those f act or s

ar e:

[ T] he oppor t uni t y of t he wi t ness t o vi ew t hecr i mi nal at t he t i me of t he cr i me, t hewi t ness' degr ee of at t ent i on, t he accur acy oft he wi t ness' pr i or descri pt i on of t hecr i mi nal , t he l evel of cer t ai nt y demonst r at edby t he wi t ness at t he conf r ont at i on, and t hel engt h of t i me between t he cr i me and t he

conf r ont at i on.

Bi gger s, 409 U. S. at 199- 200.

As t o t he f i r st f actor , t he r ecor d suppor t s t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat J . D. "had a good oppor t uni t y t o vi ew" Cast r o-

-11-


12/22

Cai cedo over "about " an hour and a hal f i n di r ect conver sat i on i n

cl ose quar t er s. J . D. t est i f i ed hi s cont ai ner shi p t wi ce docked i n

Buenavent ur a i n l at e 2007 and ear l y 2008. He f ur t her t est i f i ed he

met each t i me wi t h t he man he pur port ed t o i dent i f y i n cl ose

pr oxi mi t y i n t he man' s house, f or " [ p] r obabl y l ess t han an hour " i n

t he f i r st meet i ng and " l ess t han t hi r t y mi nut es" i n t he second.

That i s a t ot al per i od of t i me we have previ ousl y descr i bed as

pr ovi di ng "ampl e t i me t o vi ew t he def endant , " Uni t ed St ates v.

Fl or es- Ri ver a, 56 F. 3d 319, 330 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , and a per i od

exceedi ng t he hal f hour Bi gger s t hought a "consi der abl e per i od of

t i me, " 409 U. S. at 200.

J . D. ' s t est i mony al so suppor t s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

concl usi on on t he second f act or : J . D. was "payi ng car ef ul

at t ent i on" t o Cast r o- Cai cedo dur i ng t hese meet i ngs. Not onl y di d

J . D. t est i f y t o t hat ver y f act , but hi s t est i mony about t he cont ext

of t hose meet i ngs suppor t s i t : J . D. t est i f i ed he was meet i ng wi t h

coconspi r at or s t o f or ge a deal about a dr ug shi pment . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Dr ougas, 748 F. 2d 8, 27- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) ( concl udi ng

t hat cooper at i ng wi t ness i n dr ug smuggl i ng oper at i on had i ncent i ve

and oppor t uni t y t o pay cl ose at t ent i on t o coconspi r at or who was al so

a state trooper).

Cast r o- Cai cedo specul ates J . D. may have been dr unk dur i ng

t he f i r st meet i ng because J . D. t est i f i ed t he owner of f er ed hi m a

beer . But J . D. never t est i f i ed he t ook t he of f er or consumed any

-12-


13/22

al cohol . I ndeed, J . D. t est i f i ed he count er ed by aski ng f or cof f ee.

Nothi ng i n t he r ecord t hus woul d compel an i nf er ence J . D. was

i nt oxi cat ed and coul d not have pai d t he cl ose at t ent i on t he Di st r i ct

Cour t f ound. Cast r o- Cai cedo al so asser t s J . D. was di st r act ed dur i ng

t he second meet i ng because J . D. t est i f i ed he was usi ng t he i nt er net

at t he out set of t he meet i ng whi l e ot her s f et ched cocai ne. But t he

Di st r i ct Cour t f ound J . D. was payi ng cl ose at t ent i on dur i ng bot h

meet i ngs, and t he f act t hat J . D. used t he i nt er net bef or e hi s

di scussi ons wi t h t he owner i n t he second meet i ng does not r ender

t hat f i ndi ng cl ear l y er r oneous.

The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat t he t hi r d f act or f avor ed

t he use of t he i dent i f i cat i on, as J . D. ' s pr i or descr i pt i on was

"qui t e consi st ent " wi t h Cast r o- Cai cedo' s act ual char act er i st i cs.

That pr i or descr i pt i on was not so preci se or unusual t o make i t

pr oper f or t he gover nment t o pr esent photogr aphs cont ai ni ng onl y one

mat chi ng i t . Compar e DeCol ogero, 530 F. 3d at 62 ( " [ The def endant ]

has no unusual f eat ur es t hat mi ght compl i cat e t he sear ch f or ot her s

wi t h si mi l ar appear ances, yet t he ot her phot os i n t he ar r ay wer e not

of men who l ooked si mi l ar t o [ hi m] . . . . ") , wi t h Uni t ed St at es v.

Hol l i day, 457 F. 3d 121, 126 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( " [ T] he def endant ' s

appearance was so unusual t hat ' [ i ] t woul d be unr easonabl e t o expect

t he pol i ce t o f i nd pi ct ur es of ei ght ot her men who not onl y shar ed

hi s age, wei ght , hai r st yl e, and et hni ci t y, but i n addi t i on had a

si mi l ar pat t er n of f aci al di scol or at i on. ' " ( al t er at i on i n

-13-


14/22

or i gi nal ) ) . And t he cor r el at i on bet ween a wi t ness' s pr i or

descri pt i on and t he accur acy of t hat wi t ness' s l at er i dent i f i cat i on

may be weaker t han commonl y t hought and mi ght somet i mes be negat i ve.

See Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t St udy Gr oup on Eyewi t ness

Evi dence, Repor t and Recommendat i on t o t he J ust i ces 65 ( 2013) . But

gi ven t he hi gh degr ee of at t ent i on and subst ant i al oppor t uni t y t o

obser ve t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t he wi t ness had her e, t he

"case- speci f i c" j udgment t he Di st r i ct Cour t made on t hi s f act or

mer i t s " r easonabl e l at i t ude, " J ones, 689 F. 3d at 18, and i s not

cl ear l y wr ong.

The r ecor d does not cl ear l y suppor t t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

f i ndi ng t hat t he f our t h f actor - - t he eyewi t ness' s cer t ai nt y - - al so

f avor ed t he use of t he i dent i f i cat i on. For whi l e t he Di st r i ct Cour t

f ound J . D. was " qui ckl y cer t ai n" i n i dent i f yi ng Cast r o- Cai cedo, t he

r ecord support s t he j udgment J . D. was qui ck t o make t he

i dent i f i cat i on, but not necessar i l y t hat he expr essed any vi ew as

t o hi s l evel of cer t ai nt y. But t he l ack of cl ar i t y on t hat poi nt

mat t er s l i t t l e. J . D. ' s cer t ai nt y i s at best a neut r al f act or , and

her e t her e i s no i ndi cat i on of J . D. ' s l ack of cer t ai nt y. See J ones,

689 F. 3d at 18 ( " [ T] he wi t ness' l ack of conf i dence i s cer t ai nl y a

r el i abl e war ni ng si gn, whi l e t he pr esence of conf i dence i s pr obabl y

cl oser t o a neut r al f actor . ") .

And f i nal l y, t he r ecor d compor t s wi t h t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s f i ndi ng about t he r el at i vel y l i mi t ed i mpor t i n t hi s

-14-


15/22

par t i cul ar case of t he f i f t h f act or , concer ni ng t he l apse of t i me

pr i or t o t he i dent i f i cat i on. That l apse was l engt hy - - f our and a

hal f years. But whi l e we have sai d "a f i ve- year gap bet ween t he

cr i me and t he phot ogr aphi c i dent i f i cat i on i s ver y much gr eat er t han

woul d or di nar i l y be per mi ssi bl e t o f i nd an . . . i dent i f i cat i on

r el i abl e, " Dr ougas, 748 F. 2d at 28; see al so Bi gger s, 409 U. S. at

201 ( " [ A] l apse of seven mont hs bet ween t he r ape and t he

conf r ont at i on . . . woul d be a ser i ousl y negat i ve f act or i n most

cases. " ) , we have per mi t t ed an i dent i f i cat i on t o go bef or e t he j ur y

wher e t he i dent i f i cat i on came "near l y seven year s" af t er t he wi t ness

obser vat i on when "t he ot her r el i abi l i t y cri t er i a wer e suf f i ci ent l y

per suasi ve, " Fl or es- Ri ver a, 56 F. 3d at 331. I n par t i cul ar , we have

uphel d a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess wher e t he

wi t ness had "bet ween one and two hour s" t o obser ve t he suspect and

had speci al r eason t o pay cl ose at t ent i on. I d. at 330- 31; see al so

Dr ougas, 748 F. 2d at 28 ( hol di ng that a f i ve- year gap was out wei ghed

by a coconspi r at or i dent i f i cat i on t hat was based on "consi der abl e"

oppor t uni t y t o observe) . We f i nd no r eason t o r each a di f f er ent

r esul t her e, gi ven t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s f i ndi ngs, suppor t ed by t he

r ecor d, r egar di ng t he ci r cumst ances of t he subst ant i al cont act s

bet ween J . D. and t he per son he l at er i dent i f i ed as Cast r o- Cai cedo.

On appeal , Cast r o- Cai cedo does r ai se f or t he f i r st t i me

an addi t i onal set of argument s f or why we shoul d doubt t he

i dent i f i cat i on - - namel y, t hat r ecent soci al sci ence r esear ch

-15-


16/22

r eveal s t he per i l s of cr edi t i ng an eyewi t ness' s memor y. The

I nnocence Pr oj ect , as ami cus, agr ees.

But Cast r o- Cai cedo di d not r ai se t hese ar gument s bel ow.

I f he had, t he Di st r i ct Cour t coul d have wei ghed t hem i n deci di ng

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s mot i on t o suppr ess - - assumi ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t

di d not i mpl i ci t l y do so on i t s own. Cast r o- Cai cedo al so coul d have

pr esent ed t he same ar gument s t o t he j ur y or asked f or j ur y

i nst r uct i ons not i ng t hose possi bl e concer ns wi t h eyewi t ness

i dent i f i cat i ons. See J ones, 689 F. 3d at 20 ( per mi t t i ng j ur y

i nst r uct i ons) . But Cast r o- Cai cedo t ook advant age of none of t hese

oppor t uni t i es t o make hi s case. And t he gener al sur vey of soci al

sci ence r esear ch he now pr esent s f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal of f er s

us no r eason t o rej ect t he speci f i c and det ai l ed f i ndi ngs made bel ow

about t he di st i ngui shi ng f eat ur es, and hence r el i abi l i t y, of t hi s

par t i cul ar i dent i f i cat i on.

III.

Cast r o- Cai cedo al so compl ai ns t he Di st r i ct Cour t admi t t ed

t est i mony regardi ng two sei zures of cocai ne t o whi ch he had no

di r ect t i e - - and the gover nment concedes t here was no such di r ect

l i nk. Cast r o- Cai cedo t hus ar gues t he t est i mony was i r r el evant or

subst ant i al l y mor e pr ej udi ci al t han pr obat i ve and shoul d not have

been admi t t ed. Fed. R. Evi d. 401, 402, 403.

But even when evi dent i ar y chal l enges of t hi s sor t ar e

pr eser ved, we ar e di si ncl i ned t o f i nd a Di st r i ct Cour t has abused

-16-


17/22

i t s di scret i on i n assessi ng t he r el evance or undul y pr ej udi ci al

nat ur e of t est i mony. Uni t ed St at es v. Lyons, 740 F. 3d 702, 718 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . We ar e even l ess wi l l i ng t o do so when, as her e, t he

def endant f ai l ed t o obj ect bel ow, and we may t hen r ever se onl y i f

t he er r or i s pl ai n. Uni t ed St at es v. Bur dul i s, 753 F. 3d 255, 263

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( We " r equi r [ e] t he appel l ant t o show t hat t he er r or ,

i f any, was ' cl ear or obvi ous, ' ' af f ect ed hi s substant i al r i ght s, '

and ' ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c

r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar di r osi an, 602 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ) .

Her e, t he chal l enged t est i mony about one of t he sei zures

- - consi st i ng of 875 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, of whi ch t he l eader of

t he conspi r acy al l egedl y owned 60 ki l ogr ams - - f ur t her ed t he

gover nment ' s cont ent i on t hat t her e was a conspi r acy t o shi p cocai ne

t hat Cast r o- Cai cedo coul d have j oi ned. That t est i mony al so pr ovi ded

cont ext f or decodi ng t he r ecorded conver sat i ons bet ween t he al l eged

l eader of t he conspi r acy and a coconspi r at or di scussi ng t hat

sei zure. And, by doi ng so, t he t est i mony ai ded t he gover nment i n

i t s ef f or t t o show t hat coded conver sat i ons i nvol vi ng Cast r o- Cai cedo

and ot her s wer e, i ndeed, about cocai ne t r af f i cki ng. Fi nal l y, t hi s

t est i mony, by showi ng t he l ar ge quant i t y of dr ugs deal t i n by t he

conspi r acy' s l eader , l i nked t o t he gover nment ' s cont ent i on t hat t he

goal of t he conspi r acy was t o send cocai ne t o the Uni t ed St at es, as

-17-


18/22

other t est i mony suggest ed about t wo- t hi r ds of Sout h Amer i can cocai ne

goes t here.

The chal l enged t est i mony about t he ot her sei zure - -

consi st i ng of 500 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne - - i ndi cat ed one of t he

coconspi r at ors t hought t he DEA had sei zed t he cocai ne. ( I t was

actual l y sei zed by a Col ombi an l aw enf orcement agency. ) Thus, t hi s

t est i mony assi st ed t he gover nment i n advanci ng i t s t heor y t hat t he

conspi r at or s i nt ended t o r each t he U. S. mar ket .

As pr ecedent suppor t s t he r el evance of t hi s ki nd of

evi dence, see Uni t ed St at es v. D az- Ar i as, 717 F. 3d 1, 20- 22 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) , and t he Di st r i ct Cour t pr oper l y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat

Cast r o- Cai cedo coul d be convi ct ed onl y f or hi s own st ate of mi nd and

behavi or , not f or t hose of anot her , no f ur t her descr i pt i on of t he

chal l enged t est i mony' s val ue i s necessar y t o i nsul at e i t f r om

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s l at e- br eaki ng cl ai ms about l ack of r el evance and

undue pr ej udi ce. 2

IV.

Cast r o- Cai cedo al so chal l enges t est i mony f r oma Col ombi an

pol i ce of f i cer about a pol ygr aph t est he t ook t o j oi n t he DEA t ask

f or ce. I n hi s t est i mony, t he of f i cer st at ed t he pol ygr aph was gi ven

2 Cast r o- Cai cedo al so ar gues on appeal t hat t hese shi pment sar e i r r el evant and undul y pr ej udi ci al f or t he f ur t her r eason t heyact ual l y wer e par t of an ent i r el y separ at e conspi r acy f or whi ch hewas not char ged. But Cast r o- Cai cedo has not car r i ed hi s bur den onpl ai n er r or r evi ew of showi ng t hat t he shi pment s wer e obvi ousl ypart of a separate conspi r acy, and t hus we need not consi der howhi s argument woul d f are i f he had made such a showi ng.

-18-


19/22

" t o make sure t hat t he peopl e worki ng wi t h t he speci al i zed gr oup are

t he best possi bl e on t he t eam. " That of f i cer t hen went on t o

t est i f y about a l ar ge sei zur e of cocai ne bel ongi ng t o a

coconspi r at or and phone cal l s bet ween Cast r o- Cai cedo and ot her

coconspi r at or s.

On appeal , Cast r o- Cai cedo concedes he di d not obj ect t o

t hi s t est i mony bel ow. But he ar gues al l owi ng i t was pl ai n er r or .

He ref erences t he concer n we have expressed about pol ygr aph

evi dence, see Uni t ed St at es v. Mar e, 668 F. 3d 35, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( "Thi s i s t he l at est i n a gr owi ng l i ne of cases t hat ought t o

suggest , i f not a per se r ul e, t hen at l east a code of best pr act i ce

f or t he vi r t uous pr osecut or : pol ygr aph evi dence, even t hat deal i ng

wi t h mat t er s ot her t han t he act ual r esul t s of an exami nat i on, i s

usual l y mor e t r oubl e t han i t i s wor t h. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Rodr guez- Ber r os, 573 F. 3d 55, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( obser vi ng t hat

"[ p] ol ygr aph r esul t s ar e r ar el y admi ssi bl e at t r i al " due t o concer ns

about t hei r r el i abi l i t y and pr ej udi ci al ef f ect ) , and he r el i es on

pr ecedent f r om anot her ci r cui t t hat r ai ses t he par t i cul ar concer n

t hat such t est i mony may const i t ut e i mpr oper vouchi ng or bol st er i ng

of a wi t ness' s credi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ross, 703 F. 3d

856, 875- 76 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) .

The of f i cer , however , made r ef er ence t o t he pol ygraph

t est onl y i n passi ng, and t he gover nment di d not br i ng i t up agai n

dur i ng t est i mony or i n cl osi ng ar gument s. Cast r o- Cai cedo has t hus

-19-


20/22


21/22

of di scret i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t ano, 522 F. 3d 69, 72 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . But because Cast r o- Cai cedo f ai l ed t o r ai se t hese obj ect i ons

i n t he cour t bel ow, we r evi ew t hem onl y f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed

St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

When devi at i ng f r om t he Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange, a

sent enci ng j udge must gi ve r easons " r oot ed ei t her i n t he natur e and

ci r cumst ances of t he of f ense or t he char act er i st i cs of t he of f ender .

I n such a si t uat i on, t he f act or s deemed r el evant by t he sent enci ng

cour t must add up t o a pl ausi bl e rat i onal e f or t he sent ence i mposed

and must j ust i f y a var i ance of t he magni t ude i n quest i on. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Fl or es- Machi cot e, 706 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . And her e t he

Di st r i ct Cour t di d of f er such r easons and suppl y such a r at i onal e.

The Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded Cast r o- Cai cedo' s of f ense was

"ver y ser i ous" because hi s busi ness was sendi ng " l ar ge quant i t i es"

of cocai ne f r om Col ombi a t o t he Uni t ed St at es, wi t h "devast at i ng

ef f ect [ s] on i ndi vi dual s, on f ami l i es, on nei ghbor hoods, on ci t i es,

st at es, and al l of t he Uni t ed St at es. " See 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 1) ,

( a) ( 2) ( A) . The Di st r i ct Cour t al so concl uded Cast r o- Cai cedo

r equi r ed an upwar d var i ance t o det er hi m f r om f ut ur e cr i mi nal act s

and t o pr ot ect t he publ i c, due t o hi s sever al pr i or convi ct i ons f or

ser i ous of f enses and hi s f ai l ur e t o accept any responsi bi l i t y dur i ng

al l ocut i on f or hi s pr esent or past cr i mes. See i d. 3553( a) ( 2) ( B) ,

( C) . And t he Di st r i ct Cour t saw no aspect s of Cast r o- Cai cedo' s

-21-


22/22

hi st or y or i ndi vi dual char act er i st i cs that war r ant ed a l ower

sent ence. See i d. 3553( a) ( 1) .

Cast r o- Cai cedo' s ot her chal l enge t o hi s sent ence i s no

st r onger . He compl ai ns hi s sent ence i s "more t han f our t i mes l onger

t han t he sent ence of any of t he ot her coconspi r at or [ s, ] i ncl udi ng

t he l eader [ of t he conspi r acy] . " He acknowl edges al l of t he

coconspi r at or s pl ed gui l t y and sever al cooper at ed wi t h t he

gover nment , but he ar gues t hat "t hese f act or s st i l l do not j ust i f y

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent ence. " Our precedent , however , i ndi cat es

ot her wi se, Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 34 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( pl ea) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mat eo- Espej o, 426 F. 3d 508, 514 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) ( cooper at i on) , and, as we have expl ai ned, " [ a]

wel l - f ounded cl ai mof di spar i t y . . . assumes t hat appl es ar e bei ng

compared t o appl es. " Mateo- Espej o, 426 F. 3d at 514. Havi ng f ai l ed

t o show he i s pl ai nl y si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o t hose who r ecei ved

l esser sent ences, hi s unpr eser ved di spar i t y cl ai m must f ai l .

For t hese r easons, we af f i r mCast r o- Cai cedo' s convi ct i on

and sentence.

-22-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

United States v. Castro-Caicedo, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents