United States v. Rodriguez-Soler, 1st Cir. (2014)

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

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1527

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

FRANCI SCO RODR GUEZ- SOLER, a/ k/ a FRANKI E,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Kayat t a, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ane El i zabet h Lee, f or appel l ant .J ohn A. Mat hews I I , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 3, 2014


2/21

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

OVERVIEW

Fr anci sco Rodr guez- Sol er want s us t o undo hi s convi ct i on

f or var i ous dr ug and f i r ear m char ges. Hi s appeal r i ses or f al l s

dependi ng on whet her t he di st r i ct j udge sl i pped by admi t t i ng

pi ct ur es showi ng hi m wi t h accused coconspi r at ors and by al l owi ng

pol i ce of f i cer s t o t est i f y about t he pi cs. Hi s appeal f al l s, f or

r easons r eveal ed bel ow. And so when al l i s sai d and done, we

af f i r m.

READER ALERT

I f our def endant wer e quest i oni ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence agai nst hi m, we woul d of cour se nar r at e the f act s i n t he

l i ght most f l at t er i ng t o t he gover nment . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Tum, 707 F. 3d 68, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But f or cases l i ke hi s

ones wi t h no suf f i ci ency chal l enge, j ust pl ent y of evi dent i ar y

i ssues t her e i s sur pr i si ngl y no cl ear consensus on t he subj ect .

Some opi ni ons say t hat we can st i l l r et el l t he f act s i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he gover nment . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St ates v.

Bunchan, 580 F. 3d 66, 67, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Benedet t i , 433 F. 3d 111, 113, 116- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Mer cado, 412 F. 3d 243, 245, 248- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Ot hers say

t hat we ought t o pr esent t he f act s i n a bal anced way, wi t hout

f avor i ng ei t her si de. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Fel t on, 417 F. 3d

97, 99, 100- 02 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bar t el ho, 129 F. 3d

-2-


3/21

663, 667 n. 1, 676- 78 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ocopi o, 88

F. 3d 21, 23- 24, 29- 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . As best we can t el l , we ar e

t he f i r st panel t o not e t hi s spl i t . But what ever t he exact

cont our s of our r evi ew, none of i t mat t er s her e f or even usi ng

t he bal anced- pr esent at i on appr oach ( whi ch i s sur el y t he bet t er of

t he t wo f r om a def endant ' s per spect i ve) , Rodr guez- Sol er ' s appeal

st i l l f al t er s.

HOW THE CASE GOT HERE

A f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Rodr guez- Sol er f or

conspi r i ng t o possess i l l egal dr ugs wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of a pr ot ect ed ar ea, 1 conspi r i ng t o possess a

f i r ear m dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cri me, 2 and

possessi ng ( or ai di ng and abet t i ng t he possessi on of ) a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cr i me. 3 The gover nment ' s t heor y

of gui l t at t r i al was st r ai ght f or war d: Rodr guez- Sol er ser ved as

t he r i ght - hand man t o Chr i st i an A. Fi guer oa- Al var do, al so known as

"Tat n" ( whi ch i s what we wi l l cal l hi m) , who r an a dr ug poi nt at

a publ i c- housi ng compl ex. And t he gover nment of f ered much evi dence

i n t he hopes of pr ovi ng i t s case.

For exampl e, some accused conspi r ator s havi ng f l i pped

af t er get t i ng caught t est i f i ed about how Rodr guez- Sol er was "one

1 See 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846, and 860.

2 See 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) and 924( o) .

3 See 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 3) , 924( c) ( 1) ( A) , and 2.

-3-


4/21

of t he bosses" at t he dr ug poi nt , super vi si ng t he conspi r acy' s

under l i ngs and handl i ng probl ems whenever t he need arose, pr ocur i ng

and pr epar i ng dr ugs f or sal e, car r yi ng and usi ng guns t o pr ot ect

t he conspi r acy' s t ur f , et c. And a number of pol i ce of f i cer s

t est i f i ed about t hei r i nvest i gat i on of t he case, l i ke how t hey had

set up vi deo equi pment i n empty apar t ment s t o r ecord what was goi ng

on at t he dr ug poi nt and how t hey had gi ven i nf ormant s hi dden

camer as to capt ur e dr ug buys. One of f i cer al so expl ai ned how he

had f ound Rodr guez- Sol er ' s cel l phone at an area i n t he compl ex

wher e drug deal s went down. The phone had a phot o of Rodr guez-

Sol er hol di ng what appear ed t o be a r i f l e.

On t op of t hat , t he j ur y had bef or e i t t wo key cat egor i es

of exhi bi t s (admi t t ed t hr ough t he of f i cer s' t est i mony) . The f i r st

i nvol ved sur vei l l ance vi deos, one of whi ch showed Rodr guez- Sol er

get t i ng out of hi s car near t he dr ug poi nt and t al ki ng t o

conspi r at or s. The second i nvol ved t wo sets of phot os.

Set one showed Rodr guez- Sol er wi t h conspi r acy member s

out si de a pol i ce st at i on f ol l owi ng Tat n' s ar r est on an unr el at ed

hor se- t hef t char ge. For si mpl i ci t y we wi l l cal l t hese pi cs t he

"pol i ce- st at i on phot os. " Rodr guez- Sol er ' s l awyer di d not obj ect

when t he j udge admi t t ed t hem, t hough he di d obj ect unsuccessf ul l y

on r el evance and pr ej udi ce gr ounds af t er an of f i cer I D' d a f ew

per sons i n t he pi cs and was about t o say what he had seen one of

-4-


5/21

t hem "doi ng" at t he housi ng pr oj ect bef or e. 4 That of f i cer l at er

t est i f i ed wi t hout obj ect i on t hat t hose appear i ng wi t h Rodr guez-

Sol er i n t he pol i ce- st at i on phot os wer e under i nvest i gat i on f or

"t he cri mi nal i t y" occur r i ng at t he dr ug poi nt . Lat er st i l l anot her

of f i cer t est i f i ed wi t hout obj ect i on t hat Rodr guez- Sol er went t o

t he st at i on wi t h "other per sons" who "are al so member s" of Tat n' s

"or gani zat i on" t o f i nd out what had happened. And t hen a t hi r d

of f i cer t est i f i ed wi t hout obj ect i on t hat t hose who ended up out si de

t he st at i on wer e not under ar r est but had gone t her e t o suppor t

4 Her e i s what def ense counsel , t he pr osecut or , and t he j udgehad t o say about t hi s:

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : J udge, I am goi ng t o obj ect t ot hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng on r el evancy. Fi r st of al l ,t hi s pi ct ur e has not been est abl i shed t o be i n any wayconnect ed wi t h any ki nd of i l l egal act i vi t y r el at i ng t ot hi s def endant .

Now we are goi ng t o t al k about someone i n t hepi ct ure who may have been doi ng ot her t hi ngs and i n ader i vat i ve sense i t i s goi ng t o pr ej udi ce us. I don' tknow wher e t hi s i s goi ng.

[ PROSECUTOR] : Your Honor , t h[ i s] i s a case ofconspi r acy. And par t of t he evi dence t o pr ove conspi r acyi s t he f act t hat members of t he conspi r acy knew eachother.

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : J udge, t he onl y pr obl emi s thi spi ct ur e has not been t i ed t o t hi s conspi r acy. What ever

happened t hat day has nothi ng t o do wi t h t hi s conspi r acy.

THE COURT: Her e i t i s, t hi s i s t he f i r st evi dencet hat i t comes i n. I don' t t hi nk you can est abl i sh aconspi r acy wi t h a f i r st br eat h of t he f i r st wi t ness orwi t h t he f i r st photogr aph. But we have t o have ast ar t i ng poi nt . So over r ul ed.

-5-


6/21

Tat n, "who was t hi s gr oup' s l eader . " " I t ook a phot ograph of

t hem, " t he of f i cer sai d, "and t hat was t he f i r st t i me t hat I had

seen hi m" meani ng Rodr guez- Sol er .

The second set of pi cs showed Rodr guez- Sol er wi t h

conspi r acy member s af t er bei ng pul l ed over f or an unr el at ed t r af f i c

vi ol at i on near t he dr ug poi nt . Our def endant was t he car ' s dr i ver .

For cl ar i t y we wi l l cal l t hese pi cs t he "t r af f i c- st op phot os. "

Rodr guez- Sol er ' s l awyer voi ced no obj ect i on when t he j udge

admi t t ed t hese phot os i nt o evi dence or when t he of f i cer t est i f i ed

about t hem.

Undaunt ed, Rodr guez- Sol er t r i ed har d t o poke hol es i n

t he gover nment ' s case. Hi s l awyer , f or st ar t er s, vi gor ousl y cr oss-

exami ned the cooper at i ng wi t nesses about t hei r mot i ves f or

t est i f yi ng, t ouchi ng on t he agr eement s t hey had negot i at ed wi t h

pr osecut or s and expl or i ng t hei r l i ves of cr i me. Hi s at t or ney al so

got t he of f i cer s t o admi t t o var i ous t hi ngs, i ncl udi ng t hat one

cannot t el l by l ooki ng at t he cel l - phone phot o whet her t he r i f l e

was r eal or f ake, t hat not ever yone appear i ng i n t he sur vei l l ance

vi deos was a dr ug deal er , and t hat nothi ng shows t he pol i ce f ound

dr ugs dur i ng t he t r af f i c st op. Rodr guez- Sol er ' s wi t nesses

descr i bed hi m as a respect f ul , har dwor ki ng uni ver si t y st udent who

di d not sel l dr ugs and was al ways t r yi ng t o i mpr ove hi msel f . Even

Rodr guez- Sol er t ook t he st and, t est i f yi ng t hat he l i ved at t he

housi ng compl ex i n a bui l di ng near t he dr ug poi nt , t hat he had

-6-


7/21

parki ng near t he dr ug poi nt , t hat he owned no guns, t hat he had

known Tat n and other al l eged conspi r ators f or years but had no

cl ue t hat t hey wer e dr ug deal er s, t hat t he pol i ce f ound no dr ugs

dur i ng t he t r af f i c st op, and t hat he had not hi ng t o do wi t h t he

dr ug poi nt .

The j ur y f ound Rodr guez- Sol er gui l t y on al l count s. And

t he j udge sent enced hi m t o concur r ent 188- mont h pr i son t er ms on

count s 1 and 2, and a consecut i ve 60- mont h pr i son t er m on count 3.

Rodr guez- Sol er appeal s hi s convi cti on, cri t i ci zi ng t he

j udge f or admi t t i ng bot h set s of phot os and t he r el at ed t est i mony

about hi s bei ng wi t h conspi r acy member s. Al l t hi s evi dence, he

says, i s of a gui l t - by- associ at i on char act er , suggest i ng t hat he

was a conspi r ator si mpl y because he pal l ed ar ound wi t h

conspi r at or s. I n a sl i ght var i at i on on t hi s t heme, he al so

cont ends t he evi dence pr i med t he j ur y t o t hi nk t hat he was a "bad"

man because he hung out wi t h hor se t hi eves and was a t r af f i c

vi ol at or i l l egal doi ngs ( hor se t hi ever y and t r af f i c i nf r act i ons)

unr el at ed t o t he cr i mes t hat l anded hi m i n pr i son. And he

compl ai ns t hat t he of f i cer s essent i al l y t ol d t he j ur y t hat t hey had

snapped hi s phot o as par t of an i nvest i gat i on i nt o the conspi r acy

whi ch, hi s ar gument cont i nues, conveyed t o the j ur y that t hey

t hought he was a conspi r acy member t oo. So, r eachi ng a cr escendo,

he cl ai ms t he evi dence i s i r r el evant , pr ej udi ci al , and const i t ut es

-7-


8/21

f or bi dden ot her - act s evi dence. See Fed. R. Evi d. 401, 403, and

404. We t hi nk he i s wr ong, f or r easons we now expl ai n.

OUR ANALYSIS

( A)The St andar ds of Revi ew

Fi gur i ng out t he appl i cabl e st andar ds of r evi ew her e i s

t r i cky. Take t he r el evance and pr ej udi ce i ssues. The par t i es

who agr ee on l i t t l e el se bot h t hi nk Rodr guez- Sol er pr ot est ed

enough bel ow t o ar gue on appeal about t he r el evance and pr ej udi ce

of t he pol i ce- st at i on evi dence ( t he phot os and the test i mony

concer ni ng hi s bei ng wi t h conspi r at or s) . I f t r ue, t hat woul d

t r i gger abuse- of - di scret i on r evi ew a f amousl y- def er ent i al

st andar d t hat r equi r es a chal l enger t o show t hat no rat i onal per son

coul d accept t he j udge' s deci si on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Mal donado, 708 F. 3d 38, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Pol anco, 634 F. 3d 39, 44- 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . One coul d qui bbl ewi t h t hei r shar ed vi ew af t er al l , even Rodr guez- Sol er concedes

hi s counsel "di d not i ni t i al l y obj ect t o t he i nt r oducti on" of t he

pol i ce- st at i on phot os; pl us he says mor e her e about r el evance and

pr ej udi ce t han he di d bel ow. But we wi l l gi ve hi m t he benef i t of

t he doubt on t hi s poi nt . Cf . Pol anco, 634 F. 3d at 44 ( comment i ng

t hat " [ w] e need not wr est l e" wi t h t he quest i on of whet her t hedef endant "di d enough t o pr eserve" an i ssue because he st i l l l oses

usi ng t he pi ned- f or abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d) . St i l l , he

r ai sed no rel evance or pr ej udi ce obj ect i on bel ow r egar di ng t he

-8-


9/21

t r af f i c- st op evi dence ( t he phot os and t he t est i mony about hi s bei ng

wi t h conspi r at or s) . So we r evi ew t hi s mat t er onl y f or pl ai n er r or

an oh- so demandi ng st andar d, r equi r i ng hi m t o show "er r or ,

pl ai nness, pr ej udi ce t o [ hi m] and t he t hr eat of a mi scar r i age of

j ust i ce. " See Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 748 F. 3d 64, 69 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es-

Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 110, 116 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

As f or t he ot her - act s i ssue, Rodr guez- Sol er never

obj ect ed t o t he pol i ce- st at i on or t he t r af f i c- st op evi dence on t hi s

basi s. And t hat means he must al so r un t he gaunt l et of pl ai n- er r or

r evi ew t o get anywhere wi t h t hi s ar gument .

Now on to Rodr guez- Sol er ' s cl ai ms.

( B)The Rul e 401 I ssue

Up f i r st i s t he r el evance i ssue. As Rodr guez- Sol er

t el l s i t , t he pol i ce- st at i on and t r af f i c- st op evi dence had not hi ng

t o do wi t h t he charged conspi r acy. Er go, he says, t he evi dence was

i r r el evant .

The pr obl emf or Rodr guez- Sol er i s t hat f eder al r ul es of

evi dence set a ver y l ow bar f or r el evance. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Cot t o- Apont e, 30 F. 3d 4, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . Rul e 401

says ( emphasi s our s) t hat i f t he evi dence has " any t endency" t omake a mat er i al f act mor e or l ess l i kel y, i t i s r el evant . See

Bi el unas v. F/ V Mi st y Dawn, I nc. , 621 F. 3d 72, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( not i ng how "[ t ] he def i ni t i on of r el evance i s qui t e expansi ve, "

-9-


10/21

whi ch hel ps expl ai n why " [ a] r el evancy- based argument i s usual l y a

t ough sel l " ) . And t he evi dence her e cl ear s t hi s modest bar wi t h

ease, because i t t ends t o show ( at l east t o some degr ee) t hat

Rodr guez- Sol er knew some of t he conspi r at or s whi l e t he conspi r acy

was r agi ng. Act ual l y, i t t ends t o show t hat he knew some of t hem

f ai r l y wel l wel l enough t o (a) go wi t h member s t o the st at i on t o

hel p t he conspi r acy' s l eader , who was t her e on an unr el ated horse-

t hef t char ge; and ( b) dr i ve members ar ound bef ore bei ng st opped by

t he pol i ce f or an unr el at ed t r af f i c i nf r acti on.

Now a conspi r acy member need not know al l hi s f el l ow

coconspi r at or s. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578

F. 3d 78, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . But evi dence t yi ng one al l eged member

t o anot her or ot her s cer t ai nl y i s r el evant . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Anel l o, 765 F. 2d 253, 261 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( Br eyer , J . ) ( expl ai ni ng

t hat hand- wr i t t en tel ephone messages bet ween al l eged conspi r ators

were rel evant because t hey t ended t o pr ove t hat some of t hem knew

each ot her ) . And i t mat t er s not whet her t he evi dence concl usi vel y

t i es Rodr guez- Sol er t o t he char ged cr i me. See, e. g. , Ri ver a

Cal der n, 578 F. 3d at 97. "[ M] ost convi ct i ons r esul t f r om t he

cumul at i on of bi t s of pr oof whi ch, t aken si ngl y, woul d not be

enough i n t he mi nd of a f ai r mi nded per son. " Uni t ed St ates v.

Pugl i ese, 153 F. 2d 497, 500 ( 2d Ci r . 1945) ( L. Hand, J . ) . When i t

comes t o r el evancy, t hen, what mat t er s " i s t hat each bi t may have

enough r at i onal connect i on wi t h t he i ssue t o be consi der ed a f act or

-10-


11/21

cont r i but i ng t o an answer . " I d. ; see al so Ri ver a Cal der n, 578

F. 3d at 97. And agai n, t he f ought - over evi dence f i t s the bi l l .

Let us be per f ect l y cl ear . Mer el y hangi ng out wi t h

cri mi nal s har dl y suf f i ces t o pr ove par t i ci pat i on i n a conspi r acy.

See, e. g. , Pol anco, 634 F. 3d at 45; Uni t ed St at es v. Benavent e

Gomez, 921 F. 2d 378, 381 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . And not hi ng we say today

i s i nt ended t o suggest anyt hi ng t o t he cont r ar y. But our f ocus,

once agai n, i s on r el evancy, not suf f i ci ency. And because t he

groused- about evi dence moves t he knowl edge i nqui r y f or war d t o some

degr ee, i t i s r el evant even t hough st andi ng al one i t i s not

enough t o convi ct hi m.

The bot t om l i ne i s t hi s. The r el evancy r equi r ement i s

not ver y har d t o meet . See, e. g. , Pol anco, 634 F. 3d at 44. And i t

i s met her e. So we r ej ect Rodr guez- Sol er ' s cl ai m t hat t he j udge

abused hi s wi de di scr et i on i n r ul i ng t he pol i ce- st at i on evi dence

r el evant . And usi ng t he pl ai n- er r or r egi me a st andar d t hat i s

not def endant - f r i endl y, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 717

F. 3d 35, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) we al so r ej ect hi s cl ai m t hat t he

j udge shoul d have deemed t he t r af f i c- st op evi dence not r el evant .

Cf . gener al l y Tor r es- Ri ver a v. O' Nei l l - Cancel , 406 F. 3d 43, 53 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) ( f i ndi ng t hat a j udge' s act i on "was not abuse of

di scr et i on and, t hus, was not pl ai n er r or ") . Enough sai d on t hat .

-11-


12/21

( C)The Rul e 403 I ssue

Of cour se even r el evant evi dence can be excl uded i f i t s

pr obat i ve val ue i s " subst ant i al l y" over bal anced by ot her t hi ngs,

l i ke t he danger of "unf ai r prej udi ce. " That i s what Rul e 403 says.

Sei zi ng on t hi s r ul e, Rodr guez- Sol er compl ai ns t hat t he cont est ed

evi dence pr ej udi ced hi mby i nvi t i ng t he j ur y t o convi ct because of

gui l t by associ at i on ( suggest i ng conspi r at or s f l ock toget her ) ,

because he was a "bad" per son ( showi ng he cavor t ed wi t h hor se

r ust l er s and was a t r af f i c of f ender ) , and because t he of f i cer s sai d

t hey took hi s pi cs as t hey zer oed i n on t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

conspi r acy ( i mpl yi ng he was i n on t he conspi r acy t oo) . These ar e

not easy ar gument s t o wi n on. For one t hi ng, he f aces di f f i cul t

st andar ds of r evi ew abuse of di scr et i on on some i ssues, pl ai n

er r or on other s. For another as we have sai d t i me and agai n

onl y i n t he r ar est and most compel l i ng cases "wi l l we, f r om t he

vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d, " r ej ect a j udge' s on- t he- scene

Rul e 403 r ul i ng. See Di Ri co v. Ci t y of Qui ncy, 404 F. 3d 464, 468

( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( par ent het i cal l y quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sabet t a,

373 F. 3d 75, 82- 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

( 1)Probat i ve Wor t h

The same qual i t i es t hat make t he di sputed evi dence

r el evant gi ve i t a pr obat i ve val ue t oo. As we j ust sai d t hough

we say i t agai n, because t he poi nt cannot be emphasi zed enough

-12-


13/21

"i nnocent associ at i on wi t h t hose i nvol ved i n i l l egal act i vi t i es can

never f or m t he sol e basi s f or a convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Or t i z, 966 F. 2d 707, 713 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . But and i t i s a ver y

bi g "but " "t he exi st ence of a cl ose r el at i onshi p bet ween a

def endant and ot her s i nvol ved i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y can, as a par t

of a l ar ger package of pr oof , assi st i n suppor t i ng an i nf er ence of

i nvol vement i n i l l i ci t act i vi t y. " I d. And t he cont est ed evi dence

f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he l at t er cat egor y i . e. , t he phot os and

accompanyi ng t est i mony suggest an "i nt i macy of associ at i on" t hat i s

"a f act or whi ch, wi t h ot her s, [ can] r at her qui ckl y add up t o

ci r cumst ant i al pr oof " of cri mi nal i t y. See i d. at 714

( par ent het i cal l y quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Fr ancomano, 554 F. 2d 483,

487 ( 1st Ci r . 1977) ) .

Hopi ng t o downpl ay t he evi dence' s pr obat i ve wor t h,

Rodr guez- Sol er t r i es t o di st i ngui sh Or t i z away. The evi dence

t her e, unl i ke her e, i nvol ved t he "def endant ' s associ at i on wi t h

ot her conspi r at or s or accompl i ces occur r i ng at or near t he scene of

t he cri me. " Or so he ar gues. But hi s ef f or t f ai l s.

Or t i z i nvol ved a def endant named Nunez who drove wi t h a

dr ug deal er t o a dr ug deal i nvol vi ng a cust omer who was r eal l y an

undercover DEA agent . See 966 F. 2d at 710- 11. Thi ngs hi t a snag,

because t he deal er had packaged t oo much cocai ne a ki l o r at her

t han t he agr eed- on hal f a ki l o. I d. No wor r i es, t he deal er sai d.

He woul d go back t o hi s house wi t h Nunez and repackage t he product .

-13-


14/21

I d. at 711. Nunez chi med i n, secondi ng t he deal er ' s pl an. I d.

The deal er l at er met up wi t h t he agent , t hi s t i me wi t h Nunez' s

br ot her - i n- l aw, def endant Or t i z, i n t ow and wi t h a hal f a ki l o bag

of cocai ne i n pl ai n vi ew. I d. at 711, 714. Or t i z di d not say a

word as t he deal went down. I d. at 713.

Af f i r mi ng Or t i z' s convi ct i on f or ai di ng and abet t i ng a

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng scheme, we t hought i t si gni f i cant t hat he and

Nunez were br ot hers- i n- l aw. I d. at 713. Then came t he money quot e

r ef erenced above:

Whi l e i nnocent associ at i on wi t h t hose i nvol vedi n i l l egal act i vi t i es can never f or m t he sol ebasi s f or a convi ct i on, t he exi st ence of acl ose r el at i onshi p bet ween a def endant andot her s i nvol ved i n cri mi nal act i vi t y can, as apar t of a l ar ger package of pr oof , assi st i nsuppor t i ng an i nf er ence of i nvol vement i ni l l i c i t a c t i v i t y .

I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Rodr guez- Sol er r eads t hi s passage as

appl yi ng onl y t o Or t i z and t he deal er ' s t i es t i es, he not es, t hat

put t hem t oget her at t he cr i me scene. But even a qui ck ski m of

Or t i z conf i r ms t hat t hi s passage deal s wi t h Or t i z and Nunez' s t i es

br ot her s- i n- l aw who wer e never t oget her at t he cr i me scene.

Gi ven t hi s r eal i t y, Rodr guez- Sol er ' s bi d t o mi ni mi ze Or t i z' s

ef f ect on t he pr obat i ve- val ue quest i on by hi nt i ng t hat t he case' s

r each i s l i mi t ed t o associ at i on evi dence t i ed t o t he cr i mi nal s'pr esence "at or near " t he cr i me scene goes nowher e.

I f more wer e needed and we doubt t hat i t i s Uni t ed

St at es v. Vega Mol i na, 407 F. 3d 511 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , al so t hr ows

-14-


15/21

col d wat er on hi s ef f or t t o di scount t he evi dence' s pr obat i ve

wor t h. Ther e a quar t et of cr i mi nal s got ar r est ed f or r unni ng a

ki dnappi ng- f or - r ansom scheme i n Puer t o Ri co t hat r esul t ed i n t he

ki dnappee' s deat h. I d. at 516- 17. At t r i al one def endant

chal l enged t he admi ssi on of phot os of hi mwi t h ot her codef endant s.

I d. at 530. The pi cs wer e of t hem at a Connect i cut hot el about a

mont h af t er t he cr i mes occur r ed, not of t hem at or near t he Puer t o

Ri co cr i me scenes, and not of t hem doi ng any act s r el at ed t o t he

cr i mes of convi ct i on ( not hi ng i n t he opi ni on suggest s ot her wi se) .

See i d. Yet we di d not back away f r om Or t i z. I nst ead we doubl ed

down, sayi ng, " [ w] e have hel d bef or e, and t oday reaf f i r m, t hat ' t he

exi st ence of a cl ose r el at i onshi p bet ween a def endant and ot her s

i nvol ved i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y can, as par t of a l ar ger package of

pr oof , assi st i n suppor t i ng an i nf er ence of i nvol vement i n i l l i ci t

act i vi t y. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Or t i z, 966 F. 2d at 713) . And we okayed

t he phot os' admi ssi on because t hey showed "t hat t he appel l ant s had

an i nt i mat e r el at i onshi p wi t h one anot her . " I d. Agai n, t hat

devast at es Rodr guez- Sol er ' s at t empt t o recast Or t i z as r equi r i ng

evi dence of a "def endant ' s associ at i on" wi t h ot her s "at or near "

t he cr i me scene.

( 2)

Unf ai r Pr ej udi ceAs f or pr ej udi ce, we do not deny t hat t he cont est ed

evi dence of hi s hangi ng wi t h conspi r at or s i s pr ej udi ci al . But

al most al l evi dence i s meant t o be pr ej udi ci al ( by hel pi ng one si de

-15-


16/21

and hur t i ng t he ot her ) why el se woul d a par t y pr esent i t ? See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d 144, 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

I t i s onl y unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al evi dence t hat i s a no- no. See i d.

And we see not hi ng unf ai r about t he j ur y' s wei ghi ng t hi s evi dence

f or t he l i mi t ed pur pose of f i gur i ng out whet her Rodr guez- Sol er

knew some of t he conspi r ators cer t ai nl y we cannot say t hat t he

evi dence' s pr obat i ve val ue i s " subst ant i al l y" out bal anced by t he

r i sk of "unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "

Wai t a mi nut e, says Rodr guez- Sol er : The photos and

t est i mony rai sed t he spect er of unf ai r pr ej udi ce because a j ur y

coul d t hi nk t hat he was a "bad" guy si nce he r an wi t h horse t hi eves

( based on t he pol i ce- st at i on evi dence) and di sobeyed t r af f i c l aws

( based on t he t r af f i c- st op evi dence) act i vi t i es ( hor se t hi ever y

and t r af f i c vi ol at i ons) , he st r esses, havi ng not hi ng t o do wi t h t he

al l eged dr ug conspi r acy. Cal l us unper suaded.

Agai n, and at t he r i sk of bei ng over l y r epet i t i ve, t he

pol i ce- st at i on evi dence speaks vol umes about t he st r engt h of

Rodr guez- Sol er ' s t i es t o Tat n showi ng as i t does not onl y t hat

he knew Tat n but al so t hat he was l oyal t o hi m; hence hi s pr esence

at t he show- of - suppor t gat her i ng i n f r ont of t he st at i on when Tat n

got col l ar ed on t he separ at e hor se- t hef t char ge. And t r y as we

mi ght , we can spy no convi nci ng si gn t hat t he j udge mi sused hi s

consi der abl e di scr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat t he evi dence' s

pr obat i veness i s not subst ant i al l y out mat ched by t he t hr eat of

-16-


17/21

unf ai r pr ej udi ce. See Uni t ed St at es v. Adams, 375 F. 3d 108, 111

( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( expl ai ni ng t hat we "nor mal l y over t ur n[ ] " a j udge' s

cal i br at i on of t he pr obat i ve- val ue/ pr ej udi ci al - f or ce scal es "onl y

wher e [ hi s] j udgment i s egr egi ousl y wr ong") .

Turni ng t hen t o t he t r af f i c- st op evi dence, we doubt t hat

seei ng someone pul l ed over f or a t r af f i c of f ense coul d have much of

an i mpact on t he j ur y. That t r af f i c st ops ar e par t of ever yday

l i f e even f or l aw- abi di ng ci t i zens i s har dl y a news f l ash. And

i mpor t ant l y, t he l i nk bet ween bei ng a t r af f i c vi ol at or and bei ng a

dr ug conspi r at or i s super at t enuat ed at best . Gi ven t her e i s

l i t t l e i ndi cat i on of unf ai r pr ej udi ce subst ant i al l y out wei ghi ng

t hi s evi dence' s pr obat i ve val ue, Rodr guez- Sol er cannot show t hat

t he j udge er r ed l et al one pl ai nl y er r ed her e.

That l eaves hi s beef wi t h t he of f i cer s' t est i mony t hat

t hey t ook t he pol i ce- st at i on pi cs as par t of t hei r i nvest i gat i on

i nt o the dr ug conspi r acy t est i mony that he says essent i al l y

f i nger ed hi m as a coconspi r at or t oo and so smacks of gui l t by

associ at i on. 5 Though he get s poi nt s f or cr eat i vi t y, hi s ar gument

does not per suade.

As we see i t , t he t est i mony hel ped expl ai n why and how

t he pol i ce had t he phot os i n t he f i r st pl ace and al so how an

5 Par t s of Rodr guez- Sol er ' s br i ef t al k br oadl y about"phot ogr aphs and t he t est i mony, " l i ke he i s at t acki ng bot h thepol i ce- st at i on evi dence and t he t r af f i c- st op evi dence. But t het est i mony he poi nt s t o onl y i nvol ves t he pol i ce- st at i on phot os.

-17-


18/21

of f i cer f i r st saw Rodr guez- Sol er . No doubt , what t hey sai d may

have pr ej udi ced hi mi n t he sense t hat i t f i t hand- i n- gl ove wi t h t he

government ' s t heor y of t he case. But he has not convi nced us t hat

t he t est i mony caused subst ant i al unf ai r pr ej udi ce t o hi m. I n

cer t ai n ci r cumst ances of f i cer s can consi st ent wi t h Rul e 403 get

i nt o t he ni t t y- gr i t t y of t hei r past dr ug deal s wi t h dr ug def endant s

t o expl ai n how t hey met , see Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d 217,

228- 32 (1st Ci r . 2013) , whi ch seems a l ot more damni ng t han si mpl y

poi nt i ng out t hat a def endant was wi t h other per sons bei ng

i nvest i gat ed f or " cr i mi nal i t y, " as happened her e. And even i f t he

j udge' s cal l was "debat abl e, " admi t t i ng t he evi dence was not an

"egr egi ous" wr ong. See Adams, 375 F. 3d at 113. What i s mor e, even

i f we f ound a Rul e 403 vi ol at i on, we woul d st amp t he er r or harml ess

gi ven t he evi dence connect i ng Rodr guez- Sol er t o t he conspi r acy.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Dunbar , 553 F. 3d 48, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( expl ai ni ng t hat "[ t ] he essent i al i nqui r y i n har ml ess er r or r evi ew

i s whet her t he i mpr oper l y admi t t ed evi dence l i kel y af f ect ed t he

out come of [ t he] t r i al " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; see

al so Adams, 375 F. 3d at 113 ( si mi l ar ) . Recal l t he cooper at i ng

wi t nesses' t est i mony about how he was Tat n' s r i ght - hand guy, how

he was one of t he bosses, how he car r i ed guns because of t ur f wars,

et c. Sur e t hese t ur ncoat s had r easons to f abr i cat e t hei r st or i es

t o cur r y f avor wi t h t he gover nment . But hi s l awyer br ought t hi s

-18-


19/21

out on cr oss. 6 And t he j ur y was f r ee t o cr edi t t hei r t est i mony

anyway. See Uni t ed St ates v. McEl r oy, 587 F. 3d 73, 86- 87 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . Consequent l y t hi s f acet of hi s Rul e 403 argument does not

r equi r e r ever sal ei t her .

Two gr oups of i ssues down, one t o go.

( D)The Rul e 404 I ssue

Shi f t i ng to hi s ot her - act s ar gument , Rodr guez- Sol er

cal l s t he pol i ce- st at i on and t r af f i c- st op evi dence i nadmi ssi bl e

"ext r i nsi c" evi dence of hi s " associ at i ng" wi t h conspi r acy member s

i n a way "not i nt r i nsi c" t o t he cr i me char ged. "Ext r i nsi c" and

" i nt r i nsi c" evi dence t hese ar e concept s associ at ed wi t h Rul e 404.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Gr een, 698 F. 3d 48, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

So even t hough he never ci t es Rul e 404 i n hi s br i ef s, he i s

essent i al l y argui ng t hat t he j udge shoul d have banned t he evi dence

on Rul e 404 gr ounds. To put hi s ar gument i nt o per spect i ve, we

of f er a qui ck pr i mer on Rul e 404.

As ever yone i n t he f i el d knows, Rul e 404 bans evi dence of

a per son' s ot her cr i mes, wr ongs, or act s t o show a pr opensi t y t o

act i n a par t i cul ar way. See Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 1) . But t he

evi dence may be admi t t ed f or "ot her pur poses, " l i ke t o show

6 The j udge al so f ocused t he j ur y' s at t ent i on on t he pot ent i alpr obl ems wi t h cooper at i ng- wi t ness t est i mony. " [ Y] ou shoul dconsi der t he t est i mony of t hese i ndi vi dual s wi t h par t i cul arcaut i on, " t he j udge t ol d t he j ur or s, because "[ t ] hey may have hadr easons t o make up st or i es or exagger at e what ot her s di d . . . t ohel p t hemsel ves. "

-19-


20/21

"mot i ve, oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, knowl edge,

i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent , " i d. 404( b) ( 2)

a l i st t hat i s i l l ust r at i ve, not exhaust i ve, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 602 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Basi cal l y, t hen, t he

r ul e i s a r ul e of i ncl usi on, si nce onl y one pur pose i s banned and

a bunch are per mi t t ed, see Uni t ed St ates v. Zeul i , 725 F. 2d 813,

816 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) t hough nat ur al l y we cannot al l ow t he

except i ons t o devour t he r ul e, see Uni t ed St at es v. Var oudaki s, 233

F. 3d 113, 125 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

By cover i ng onl y evi dence of a per son' s " ot her cr i mes,

wr ongs, or act s, " t he r ul e dr aws a l i ne bet ween pr i or act s t hat ar e

par t of t he char ged cr i me and t hose t hat ar e not . Uni t ed St ates v.

Bowi e, 232 F. 3d 923, 927 ( D. C. Ci r . 2000) . Li ke ot her cour t s, see

i d. , we cal l evi dence of t he char ged cr i me " i nt r i nsi c" and evi dence

of "ot her " cr i mes " ext r i nsi c, " see Uni t ed St at es v. Shea, 159 F. 3d

37, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . Assumi ng, as t he par t i es do, t hat t he

pol i ce- st at i on and t r af f i c- st op evi dence i s ext r i nsi c to t he

char ged conspi r acy, we must consi der whether t he evi dence i s

r el evant ( ot her t han t o pr ove pr opensi t y) t o an i ssue i n t he case

and, i f yes, whet her t he danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce subst ant i al l y

out wei ghs t he evi dence' s pr obat i ve val ue. See, e. g. , Landr y, 631

F. 3d at 602; see al so Zeul i , 725 F. 2d at 816 ( not i ng t hat i f t he

Rul e 404( b) evi dence i s r el evant t o somet hi ng ot her t han

-20-


21/21

pr opensi t y, "i t i s admi ssi bl e, subj ect onl y t o t he r ar el y i nvoked

l i mi t at i ons of Rul e 403") .

Havi ng set t he st age, we can make qui ck wor k of

Rodr guez- Sol er ' s argument . As we sai d above, t he cont est ed

evi dence i s r el evant t o show t hat he knew some of t he conspi r ators,

a non- pr opensi t y pur pose. See gener al l y Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es

Per ez, 849 F. 2d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng t hat when t he

ot her - act s evi dence " i s i nt r oduced t o show knowl edge, mot i ve, or

i nt ent , t he Rul e 404( b) except i ons t o the pr ohi bi t i on agai nst

character evi dence have been const r ued br oadl y") . And as we al so

sai d above, t he bal ance bet ween pr obat i ve wor t h and pr ej udi ci al

i mpact t i l t s i n f avor of l et t i ng t he evi dence i n. I t f ol l ows,

t hen, t hat Rodr guez- Sol er ' s Rul e 404 t heor y cannot pass t he pl ai n-

er r or t est . And t hat i s t hat .

FINAL WORDS

Our wor k over , we af f i r m Rodr guez- Sol er ' s convi ct i on.

-21-

Documents

United States v. Rodriguez-Soler, 1st Cir. (2014)